People are allowed to be excited. People are allowed to be pessimistic. And, here's the cool thing: People are allowed to exchange their views on why they should be either pessimistic or excited.
People are allowed to be excited. People are allowed to be pessimistic. And, here's the cool thing: People are allowed to exchange their views on why they should be either pessimistic or excited.
LIKE HELL THEY ARE!
I kid, I kid. Like I said, I don't really care. Monsters Inc didn't make much of an impression on me.
I'm thinking "Ugh". They take a step forward toward making legitimately good film in Up, and then they pull ANOTHER sequel. Cars 2 was bad enough. I thought Pixar had a sequels-are-generally-bad policy.
Actually, they have an "only-make-a-sequel-if-you're-sure-the-story's-better" policy.
I am a Pixar fan so really i will see all their movies
I know Pixar is capable of making great movies so i am not worried.
Well Cars 2 is probably going to be a load of crap
I guess someone at Pixar thought making a sequel of their worst movie would be a good idea. (I still liked the first but it's not even close to being as good as the others)
Out of my universal love for all the Pixar films, "Monsters, Inc" gets the most, as it ranks as my personal favorite. I've secretly harbored a hope for a sequel for years and now I'm tingly inside to know that it's finally happening. I am really looking forward to this.
In my opinion, Cars was far better than Ratatoullie. That was a big drop in quality from their other movies...
I think I mostly like Ratatouille because I recognised places and stuff. But it's one of these movies that I prefer watching in French. It just makes 0 sense that the characters would be speaking English with a French accents (but hey, not all of them. Obviously, translating French into English results in fake French accents, but translating rat into English results in no accent at all. Also, the main character is excluded from having a French accent for some reason).
I just didn't get it. Yes, they're French. We get it. Let them speak normally. I don't even understand them if I watch the movie in the original English.
Ratatouille is tasty though, and the concept was nice. The story itself was a bit too predictable but oh well. The streets were awesome.
I'm still not sure what time period it was supposed to take place in though.
I didn't like Wally too much. I thought it was too long and kept dropping anvils.
I didn't see Cars. I mean, it's a movie about cars, I fail to see how that could possibly interest me. And I haven't seen Up either.
I really liked Monsters, Inc, at any rate. I remember a cartoon from when I was a kid that had the same concept so it was nice seeing a movie made out of it.
I think I mostly like Ratatouille because I recognised places and stuff. But it's one of these movies that I prefer watching in French. It just makes 0 sense that the characters would be speaking English with a French accents (but hey, not all of them. Obviously, translating French into English results in fake French accents, but translating rat into English results in no accent at all. Also, the main character is excluded from having a French accent for some reason).
I just didn't get it. Yes, they're French. We get it. Let them speak normally. I don't even understand them if I watch the movie in the original English.
Ratatouille is tasty though, and the concept was nice. The story itself was a bit too predictable but oh well. The streets were awesome.
I'm still not sure what time period it was supposed to take place in though.
It's good enough for a film which in some respects was made to semi-hide the rat problem in Disney land. (Okay, that was a lie! But it makes for an incredibly unfunny joke when you've been queing for dumbo for an hour and see a real rat!). I can never remember the rats name. Was it Lenny or something? Most people(IRL) just call him Ratatouille.
Can't remember the rat's name. The weird thing though is rats are a very common pet in France and I don't think the people who made the movie knew that. Of course, the rats you find in sewers generally aren't kept as pets. Still, it felt weird that it was never pointed out or mentioned when that would have been such an obvious thing, you know?
I think after the movie, rats called ratatouille became quite common lol. I'm sure lots of kids wanted a rat as a pet. I've heard rats have tons of advantages over mice as pets. Never had either one myself, though, my cats would eat it right away for sure.
I loved Wall-e. Best Pixar movie ever. Was a nice return to their roots (funny, interesting, minimal dialogue shorts). Followed closely by The Incredibles. Cars was ok. Not amazing but not bad.
I didn't see Cars. I mean, it's a movie about cars, I fail to see how that could possibly interest me. And I haven't seen Up either.
Cars isn't just "about cars." In the movie Cars, there are no humans. all the people and animals and bugs and every living thing are all cars, which is why the movie is aptly named.
However, the movie is about loyalty, friendship and learning to slow down in a fast-paced world.
The plot involves a big celebrity (sports car) who
gets lost en route to a race, ends up getting stuck in a small town and basically learns to see a new perspective on life rather than just living to crave the spotlight.
It really is a wonderful movie.
And... seeing that I'm from Oklahoma, my favorite line is:
Mater: "I'm as happy as a tornado in a trailer park!"
(seriously, the whole theater broke out in laughter at that.)
Okay, I know that it's "Disney Pixar," but I don't rate their movies together. Besides, why would you say that a Pixar theatrical sequel is going to be bad because Disney's straight-to-DVD sequels are bad?
Also, both Toy Story AND Toy Story 2 have tomatometers at 100% on rottentomatoes.com. So they obviously DO know how to do sequels.
I wonder if they're going to release another pixar short alongside it. Those are great! My favourite being the one about an alien in training. 'Lifted' I think it's called, but don't hold me on that.
I find it funny how so many of you are complaining about sequels to movies that are basically aimed towards children (that can be enjoyed by grown ups as well). And you know what? My kid loves Cars, and I know he'll love Cars 2 as well. Both my kids enjoy every Shrek movie equally. Madagascar is popular with them as well (although I don't think that was Pixar or Disney, was it?).
So you see, they're not aimed mainly at you, and I don't think we'll ever see an animation movie from Pixar aiming to please grown ups who can enjoy childrens tales. Children love the movies (probably all of them), so complaining about sequels just isn't right, really, because the children wants them.
I find it funny how so many of you are complaining about sequels to movies that are basically aimed towards children (that can be enjoyed by grown ups as well). And you know what? My kid loves Cars, and I know he'll love Cars 2 as well. Both my kids enjoy every Shrek movie equally. Madagascar is popular with them as well (although I don't think that was Pixar or Disney, was it?).
So you see, they're not aimed mainly at you, and I don't think we'll ever see an animation movie from Pixar aiming to please grown ups who can enjoy childrens tales. Children love the movies (probably all of them), so complaining about sequels just isn't right, really, because the children wants them.
True, but if we can't moan about how Kids TV/films have becoem a cash-in fest what can we moan about?
<irony intended>
As a side note, i'm pretty sure that kids like whatever disney tells them to these days. The likes of Hannah Montanna, and all those other rather naff live action corny disney programmes are prime examples.
Anyway, my point is that they'd like whatever movie pixar put out. It just would be nice if it would be more original stuff to please the less easily swayed fans.
I never thought of Shrek as a movie for kids. I actually think t was advertised in France as something along the lines of "the cartoon movie that's not for kids" or something.
And I don't look at it that way. They're not "kid movies" they're "family movies" and there's a difference. It means there are elements that both kids and grown ups can enjoy. I'd even go as far as to say that Dreamworks Animation movies are more geared to older audiences than younger ones.
I'd even go as far as to say that Dreamworks Animation movies are more geared to older audiences than younger ones.
I don't think that's far to go. That's actually my point, too. I've always seen Dreamworks as targeted towards adults and teenagers more than towards kids.
Ratatouille is thisclose being my Number 2 Pixar movie, but gets knocked down a slot for perhaps being a bit too talky for its own good. It also has a sort of "spinning plates" approach to plotting and pacing which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but in this case betrays that the film wasn't just one director's vision from beginning to end. And I say all that believing it was within a hair's-breadth of jumping both those hurdles. The writing is just that damn good.
Also, I tend to think Cars takes more lumps than it deserves. If not a remarkable film, it's a fine one that tells its story well. And it had the unenviable position of being Pixar's follow-up to the one-two punch of Finding Nemo and The Incredibles (the latter being my Number 1 Pixar movie, incidentally). I have to wonder how much of the lukewarm press it got was due to hype backlash?
Anyway, back to Monsters, Inc. ... I was a pretty big fan of it back in the day. I would rank it somewhere in the middle of Pixar's oeuvre now, but I still think it's charming and imaginative. If the early buzz for Toy Story 3 is anything to go by, we might be in for a treat (yes, even with Cars 2). So I'm cautiously optimistic.
I find it funny how so many of you are complaining about sequels to movies that are basically aimed towards children (that can be enjoyed by grown ups as well). And you know what? My kid loves Cars, and I know he'll love Cars 2 as well. Both my kids enjoy every Shrek movie equally. Madagascar is popular with them as well (although I don't think that was Pixar or Disney, was it?).
So you see, they're not aimed mainly at you, and I don't think we'll ever see an animation movie from Pixar aiming to please grown ups who can enjoy childrens tales. Children love the movies (probably all of them), so complaining about sequels just isn't right, really, because the children wants them.
Interesting ... this is a somewhat different tack on the whole, "Why are you criticizing these films so harshly? They're not made for you!" argument. Although it's usually in the context of jumping on people who criticise children's/family movies at all, as opposed to just focusing on the sequels. Your point is definitely more justifiable.
So here's my take: Most of the time, I don't mind sequels. I just want good movies, period. And even artistically speaking (as opposed to the usual financial reasons for franchise-milking), there is something to that desire for revisiting places and characters when it makes sense. They might have more stories to tell, and because we like/love them so much, of course we want to see them all again!
But I do think there's something genuinely disconcerting about Pixar making three sequels in a row, as opposed to releasing original films inbetween. I don't blame people who worry about this trend -- because to a certain extent, I'm right there with them. Originality, telling new stories about new characters in different worlds is important. On the other hand, I think I can be reasonably confident that these sequels will be good -- maybe even great -- movies based on Pixar's past track record.
After all, I wouldn't have minded most of Disney's "cheapquels" if they didn't feel so ... well ... cheap.
Well, you could say that, if they just made sequel after sequel. And who knows, have the studio got any bigger? Is there a slight possibility that they're working on something else meanwhile doing the sequels? Also, they've created all these unique settings, and I can't imagine it being easy to invent new unique settings at the same rate all the time. Now we have a cars setting, a monster setting, ants, rats. They could do a monkey setting of course (wink wink). But anyway, they may have a lot of new ideas of stories and elements within these worlds. So let's say, they have this idea of a monster movie again. But hey, they've already made one of those. It would probably be a lot easier to take the current world, add some new elements not seen in the first movie, and a new story, maybe even with new characters. But if they don't call it Monsters Inc. 2 or something, and maybe something entirely different - people would probably just say "it's basically Monsters Inc. 2, so if you wanted a sequel of that, here it is", in their reviews.
The problem with sequels to the old Disney classics, like Cinderella and Lady and the Tramp, is that they probably don't have the original writers - and the fact that some of their stories were basically Disney-versions of original stories they didn't write. Plus, Pixar is not Disney, they are more able at writing stories these days than Disney is. When was the last time we saw a genuine Disney movie with a genuinely good story (motion pictures aside). Bad writers obviously leads to bad sequels. And sequels is not something entirely new to Pixar, even if it's been a while since Toy Story 2. And the short movies are almost always good.
Anyway, let's see how the first sequel ends up before judging. Cars is first, right?
Ratatouille is also my favourite Pixar movie so far, Giant Tope. I went to see it with about 5 other friends and I think I was the only one of us who actually really enjoyed it.
Like StarEye said, Disney and Pixar may work together but they are not the same thing. So far I've not seen anything from Pixar I haven't liked (I think Wall-E and Up are the only ones I've not seen out of the Disney-Pixar movies) and it just seems that whatever idea they have, they just make it work. They've come up with some great short movies too.
I can't imagine what a Monsters Inc. sequel will be like, but I don't expect it to be bad. Come to think of it, I enjoyed Toy Story 2 as much as the first one.
As for Disney on their own, I like some of their sequels, though not all of them. Then again, I don't like all of their animated classics either. In the end it really does come down to personal taste; you're never going to be the only one who loves or hates something. I just don't understand why they're so cheap these days; I find it hard to believe they're low on money!!
On one hand, I kinda wish that old rumour about Walt Disney's corpse being frozen so they could bring him back in the future was real. Maybe he'd get the company back on their feet. On the other hand, after he sees how low-budget their stuff's become all of a sudden* he might re-freeze himself again...
*In general, that is. I'm not saying every single thing they've done in the past decade has been low-budget, I hear some of their stuff is pretty classy!
I don't see how Up can't be considered the best of the bunch. I suppose the comedy sidekicks in that one were of the particularly annoying variety, but the overall movie was really close to being a truly great film.
Even though it's told mostly in montage(possibly BECAUSE it's told mostly in montage), the love story between Carl and Ellie is one of the most touching and believable that I've seen in modern American moviemaking. That opening montage is simply brilliant, and in fact would have worked amazingly well as just a short film in its own right.
Then you have a kid who strives for the acceptance of a father that has no time for him, whose parents are either separated or divorced. We have a villain whose motivation is not all that disparate from Carl's own, it's believable. In the world of children's movies, it's pretty neat to have someone whose motivation is having grown slowly mad in his own search for the world's recognition. He's a pretty neat character, and the scene in which he knocks away the helmets of adventurers that he'd killed is delightfully eerie.
I just wish the movie had been done with a slightly older audience as the target so we could do without the comedy sidekick brigade, with Good Dumb Dog, Meanie Dumb Dogs, One Mean Dog With Squeaky Voice Haha That Is Not Threatening What A Twist, and Wacky Bird Haha That Is Not A Boy What A Twist. Also the kid could've been toned down a bit.
I just found Up to be a lot more sincere than other Pixar films, which seem to bank on "We're friends because we're happy-looking and brightly colored and we're going to the same place" or something along those lines.
I don't see how Up can't be considered the best of the bunch. I suppose the comedy sidekicks in that one were of the particularly annoying variety, but the overall movie was really close to being a truly great film.
Even though it's told mostly in montage(possibly BECAUSE it's told mostly in montage), the love story between Carl and Ellie is one of the most touching and believable that I've seen in modern American moviemaking. That opening montage is simply brilliant, and in fact would have worked amazingly well as just a short film in its own right.
Then you have a kid who strives for the acceptance of a father that has no time for him, whose parents are either separated or divorced. We have a villain whose motivation is not all that disparate from Carl's own, it's believable. In the world of children's movies, it's pretty neat to have someone whose motivation is having grown slowly mad in his own search for the world's recognition. He's a pretty neat character, and the scene in which he knocks away the helmets of adventurers that he'd killed is delightfully eerie.
I just wish the movie had been done with a slightly older audience as the target so we could do without the comedy sidekick brigade, with Good Dumb Dog, Meanie Dumb Dogs, One Mean Dog With Squeaky Voice Haha That Is Not Threatening What A Twist, and Wacky Bird Haha That Is Not A Boy What A Twist. Also the kid could've been toned down a bit.
Up is actually my Number 2 film for pretty much all the reasons you mention. Its opening montage is second to none in the medium, and Muntz is a surprisingly sympathetic yet frightening villain. I'm still awed by how Russell's backstory and what Kevin represents (a connection to Ellie's love of ornithology and her desire for children) are woven into Carl's own story. The "comedy sidekicks" didn't really bug or annoy me as such, but the dogs in particular don't always feel like they belong in the same film. And that's probably the main reason I can't quite bump it to Number 1 -- The Incredibles is Pixar running on all cylinders, whereas Up is almost-nearly that if not for the few disparate elements which sneak in.
Slight tangent: I've heard an intriguing suggestion elsewhere that Carl's decision to fly his house to Paradise Falls was an implicit "burial quest" -- a la The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, but with
the "burier" and "buriee" being one and the same
.
Anyway ... to everyone who hasn't seen Up yet: Please, do so. It's a beautiful film, even with (and sometimes because of) its bouts of goofiness.
I just found Up to be a lot more sincere than other Pixar films, which seem to bank on "We're friends because we're happy-looking and brightly colored and we're going to the same place" or something along those lines.
I dunno. Only A Bug's Life seems to fall prey to that, and maybe even Toy Story to a certain extent. Although I think the latter managed to move past that before the first movie was over. The main thing that comes to mind is how differently Andy's toys relate to each other for most of the original Toy Story compared to its sequel. In the first movie, there's an underlying tension and antagonism due to awareness of Andy's favoritism towards certain toys. Once they (and Andy himself) realize none of those hierarchical constructs really mean anything, the toys act more like a family as opposed to a bunch of individuals who happen to share the same living space and only associate themselves with a community by default. We get to see most of that in Toy Story 2.
... Now that I think about it, I'm not sure that's much of a rebuttal. But I guess it demonstrates that I could believe in the established relationships because I thought Pixar developed them sufficiently. YMMV, as they say.
Speaking of Toy Story ... for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, here's a viral video (presumably created or commissioned by Pixar, natch) which continues the grand tradition of faux toy commercials which employ convincing taped-on-VHS-back-in-the-day effects! :O)
I still can't see why people can't see a Monster Inc. 2 happening.
I mean, the first movie basically had several themes. On one hand it's about things not being as it seems. On the other hand it's also about pursuing your heart instead of what you think you want. There are also a lot of other themes in that movie.
Based on the ending of the first movie though, I think the second movie would have a slightly darker theme, a theme that could also possibly pop up in Toy Story 3, but would really work well to the point of it being brilliant. The theme I imagine would have to be letting go of something, or something good. It's going to hurt you very hard, but sometimes it's the best for everyone in the end.
At least that's how I would see this movie if I were to have a say.
I still can't see why people can't see a Monster Inc. 2 happening.
I mean, the first movie basically had several themes. On one hand it's about things not being as it seems. On the other hand it's also about pursuing your heart instead of what you think you want. There are also a lot of other themes in that movie.
Based on the ending of the first movie though, I think the second movie would have a slightly darker theme, a theme that could also possibly pop up in Toy Story 3, but would really work well to the point of it being brilliant. The theme I imagine would have to be letting go of something, or something good. It's going to hurt you very hard, but sometimes it's the best for everyone in the end.
At least that's how I would see this movie if I were to have a say.
You're right. The ending of the first Monsters Inc. suggested a very large possibility for a sequel;
now I wouldn't say a "darker theme", I'd say a dramatic heart warming theme where a possible "Boo" is growing up.
Either way I've been waiting for this for years. And I couldn't be happier.
My favorite is between Wall E, Ratatouille, Up and The Incredibles. I just love how Up and The Incredibles did what other 3D animation studios (primarily Dreamworks) didn't do; make a movie about humans. Not talking animals, not ogres in a fantasy world, just humans in a modern world.
I love Ratatouille simply because it consists of two worlds; the talking animal world, and the real world, and the story gave balance between these two worlds. Also, animated food had never looked so good.
And Wall E is pure sci-fi goodness. Not a parody, not a clever homage or nod, but just a great piece of original writing. And the characterization of these characters are incredibly done, considering how much actual dialogue they have. In fact, I love how none of the robots in the movie look in any way human, nor have traditional human faces, but they can express such a wide range of emotions.
My reaction to the Monsters Inc. sequel is; excited, surprised, but not really.
The problem with sequels to the old Disney classics, like Cinderella and Lady and the Tramp, is that they probably don't have the original writers
Sorry, but I have to point this out every time someone brings up 'writers' in old, animated Disney movies: there weren't any writers, at least not in the traditional, 'writing a screenplay' sense. There were storymen who would come up with a brief film treatment and then storyboard all of it, but back then, scripts were not written for animated films.
The real reason why sequels with old Disney classics don't work is because none of them intended to have sequels to them. Walt Disney made it pretty clear that he hated the idea of sequels, as he preferred to explore new ideas rather than go back to the same story again. When asked about a possible sequel to the popular Three Little Pigs short, he famously replied, "You can't top pigs with pigs."
Now, that isn't to say that Pixar making a sequel is a bad idea, they just need to be careful with the new stories they come up with for the same setting and characters. It's gotta be fresh, but at the same time it has to relate to the first one somehow. Toy Story 2 was good in that respect. All the Disney straight-to-video sequels were not good in that respect.
Comments
I think you're overreacting over my "overreaction" over your overreaction.
LIKE HELL THEY ARE!
I kid, I kid. Like I said, I don't really care. Monsters Inc didn't make much of an impression on me.
Actually, they have an "only-make-a-sequel-if-you're-sure-the-story's-better" policy.
What?
np: RJD2 - Games You Can Win (ft. Kenna) (The Colossus)
Wait, there was a Star Trek I?!
Not a Trek fan?
I guess anything's possible.
I know Pixar is capable of making great movies so i am not worried.
Well Cars 2 is probably going to be a load of crap
I guess someone at Pixar thought making a sequel of their worst movie would be a good idea. (I still liked the first but it's not even close to being as good as the others)
that's just my opinion
He also could be one of the head writers for "Monsters, Inc 2"
I think I mostly like Ratatouille because I recognised places and stuff. But it's one of these movies that I prefer watching in French. It just makes 0 sense that the characters would be speaking English with a French accents (but hey, not all of them. Obviously, translating French into English results in fake French accents, but translating rat into English results in no accent at all. Also, the main character is excluded from having a French accent for some reason).
I just didn't get it. Yes, they're French. We get it. Let them speak normally. I don't even understand them if I watch the movie in the original English.
Ratatouille is tasty though, and the concept was nice. The story itself was a bit too predictable but oh well. The streets were awesome.
I'm still not sure what time period it was supposed to take place in though.
I didn't like Wally too much. I thought it was too long and kept dropping anvils.
I didn't see Cars. I mean, it's a movie about cars, I fail to see how that could possibly interest me. And I haven't seen Up either.
I really liked Monsters, Inc, at any rate. I remember a cartoon from when I was a kid that had the same concept so it was nice seeing a movie made out of it.
It's good enough for a film which in some respects was made to semi-hide the rat problem in Disney land. (Okay, that was a lie! But it makes for an incredibly unfunny joke when you've been queing for dumbo for an hour and see a real rat!). I can never remember the rats name. Was it Lenny or something? Most people(IRL) just call him Ratatouille.
I think after the movie, rats called ratatouille became quite common lol. I'm sure lots of kids wanted a rat as a pet. I've heard rats have tons of advantages over mice as pets. Never had either one myself, though, my cats would eat it right away for sure.
Cars isn't just "about cars." In the movie Cars, there are no humans. all the people and animals and bugs and every living thing are all cars, which is why the movie is aptly named.
However, the movie is about loyalty, friendship and learning to slow down in a fast-paced world.
The plot involves a big celebrity (sports car) who
It really is a wonderful movie.
And... seeing that I'm from Oklahoma, my favorite line is:
Mater: "I'm as happy as a tornado in a trailer park!"
(seriously, the whole theater broke out in laughter at that.)
Also, both Toy Story AND Toy Story 2 have tomatometers at 100% on rottentomatoes.com. So they obviously DO know how to do sequels.
My Pixar feature-length order of preference...
1. Toy Story
2. Monsters Inc
3. Wall-E
4. A Bug's Life
5. Ratatouille
6. Toy Story 2
7. Finding Nemo
8. The Incredibles
9. Up
10. Cars
So you see, they're not aimed mainly at you, and I don't think we'll ever see an animation movie from Pixar aiming to please grown ups who can enjoy childrens tales. Children love the movies (probably all of them), so complaining about sequels just isn't right, really, because the children wants them.
<irony intended>
As a side note, i'm pretty sure that kids like whatever disney tells them to these days. The likes of Hannah Montanna, and all those other rather naff live action corny disney programmes are prime examples.
Anyway, my point is that they'd like whatever movie pixar put out. It just would be nice if it would be more original stuff to please the less easily swayed fans.
I figured you really liked it, somehow
And I don't look at it that way. They're not "kid movies" they're "family movies" and there's a difference. It means there are elements that both kids and grown ups can enjoy. I'd even go as far as to say that Dreamworks Animation movies are more geared to older audiences than younger ones.
I don't think that's far to go. That's actually my point, too. I've always seen Dreamworks as targeted towards adults and teenagers more than towards kids.
Also, I tend to think Cars takes more lumps than it deserves. If not a remarkable film, it's a fine one that tells its story well. And it had the unenviable position of being Pixar's follow-up to the one-two punch of Finding Nemo and The Incredibles (the latter being my Number 1 Pixar movie, incidentally). I have to wonder how much of the lukewarm press it got was due to hype backlash?
Anyway, back to Monsters, Inc. ... I was a pretty big fan of it back in the day. I would rank it somewhere in the middle of Pixar's oeuvre now, but I still think it's charming and imaginative. If the early buzz for Toy Story 3 is anything to go by, we might be in for a treat (yes, even with Cars 2). So I'm cautiously optimistic.
Interesting ... this is a somewhat different tack on the whole, "Why are you criticizing these films so harshly? They're not made for you!" argument. Although it's usually in the context of jumping on people who criticise children's/family movies at all, as opposed to just focusing on the sequels. Your point is definitely more justifiable.
So here's my take: Most of the time, I don't mind sequels. I just want good movies, period. And even artistically speaking (as opposed to the usual financial reasons for franchise-milking), there is something to that desire for revisiting places and characters when it makes sense. They might have more stories to tell, and because we like/love them so much, of course we want to see them all again!
But I do think there's something genuinely disconcerting about Pixar making three sequels in a row, as opposed to releasing original films inbetween. I don't blame people who worry about this trend -- because to a certain extent, I'm right there with them. Originality, telling new stories about new characters in different worlds is important. On the other hand, I think I can be reasonably confident that these sequels will be good -- maybe even great -- movies based on Pixar's past track record.
After all, I wouldn't have minded most of Disney's "cheapquels" if they didn't feel so ... well ... cheap.
The problem with sequels to the old Disney classics, like Cinderella and Lady and the Tramp, is that they probably don't have the original writers - and the fact that some of their stories were basically Disney-versions of original stories they didn't write. Plus, Pixar is not Disney, they are more able at writing stories these days than Disney is. When was the last time we saw a genuine Disney movie with a genuinely good story (motion pictures aside). Bad writers obviously leads to bad sequels. And sequels is not something entirely new to Pixar, even if it's been a while since Toy Story 2. And the short movies are almost always good.
Anyway, let's see how the first sequel ends up before judging. Cars is first, right?
Like StarEye said, Disney and Pixar may work together but they are not the same thing. So far I've not seen anything from Pixar I haven't liked (I think Wall-E and Up are the only ones I've not seen out of the Disney-Pixar movies) and it just seems that whatever idea they have, they just make it work. They've come up with some great short movies too.
I can't imagine what a Monsters Inc. sequel will be like, but I don't expect it to be bad. Come to think of it, I enjoyed Toy Story 2 as much as the first one.
As for Disney on their own, I like some of their sequels, though not all of them. Then again, I don't like all of their animated classics either. In the end it really does come down to personal taste; you're never going to be the only one who loves or hates something. I just don't understand why they're so cheap these days; I find it hard to believe they're low on money!!
On one hand, I kinda wish that old rumour about Walt Disney's corpse being frozen so they could bring him back in the future was real. Maybe he'd get the company back on their feet. On the other hand, after he sees how low-budget their stuff's become all of a sudden* he might re-freeze himself again...
*In general, that is. I'm not saying every single thing they've done in the past decade has been low-budget, I hear some of their stuff is pretty classy!
Even though it's told mostly in montage(possibly BECAUSE it's told mostly in montage), the love story between Carl and Ellie is one of the most touching and believable that I've seen in modern American moviemaking. That opening montage is simply brilliant, and in fact would have worked amazingly well as just a short film in its own right.
Then you have a kid who strives for the acceptance of a father that has no time for him, whose parents are either separated or divorced. We have a villain whose motivation is not all that disparate from Carl's own, it's believable. In the world of children's movies, it's pretty neat to have someone whose motivation is having grown slowly mad in his own search for the world's recognition. He's a pretty neat character, and the scene in which he knocks away the helmets of adventurers that he'd killed is delightfully eerie.
I just wish the movie had been done with a slightly older audience as the target so we could do without the comedy sidekick brigade, with Good Dumb Dog, Meanie Dumb Dogs, One Mean Dog With Squeaky Voice Haha That Is Not Threatening What A Twist, and Wacky Bird Haha That Is Not A Boy What A Twist. Also the kid could've been toned down a bit.
I just found Up to be a lot more sincere than other Pixar films, which seem to bank on "We're friends because we're happy-looking and brightly colored and we're going to the same place" or something along those lines.
Up is actually my Number 2 film for pretty much all the reasons you mention. Its opening montage is second to none in the medium, and Muntz is a surprisingly sympathetic yet frightening villain. I'm still awed by how Russell's backstory and what Kevin represents (a connection to Ellie's love of ornithology and her desire for children) are woven into Carl's own story. The "comedy sidekicks" didn't really bug or annoy me as such, but the dogs in particular don't always feel like they belong in the same film. And that's probably the main reason I can't quite bump it to Number 1 -- The Incredibles is Pixar running on all cylinders, whereas Up is almost-nearly that if not for the few disparate elements which sneak in.
Slight tangent: I've heard an intriguing suggestion elsewhere that Carl's decision to fly his house to Paradise Falls was an implicit "burial quest" -- a la The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, but with
Anyway ... to everyone who hasn't seen Up yet: Please, do so. It's a beautiful film, even with (and sometimes because of) its bouts of goofiness.
I dunno. Only A Bug's Life seems to fall prey to that, and maybe even Toy Story to a certain extent. Although I think the latter managed to move past that before the first movie was over. The main thing that comes to mind is how differently Andy's toys relate to each other for most of the original Toy Story compared to its sequel. In the first movie, there's an underlying tension and antagonism due to awareness of Andy's favoritism towards certain toys. Once they (and Andy himself) realize none of those hierarchical constructs really mean anything, the toys act more like a family as opposed to a bunch of individuals who happen to share the same living space and only associate themselves with a community by default. We get to see most of that in Toy Story 2.
... Now that I think about it, I'm not sure that's much of a rebuttal. But I guess it demonstrates that I could believe in the established relationships because I thought Pixar developed them sufficiently. YMMV, as they say.
Speaking of Toy Story ... for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, here's a viral video (presumably created or commissioned by Pixar, natch) which continues the grand tradition of faux toy commercials which employ convincing taped-on-VHS-back-in-the-day effects! :O)
I mean, the first movie basically had several themes. On one hand it's about things not being as it seems. On the other hand it's also about pursuing your heart instead of what you think you want. There are also a lot of other themes in that movie.
Based on the ending of the first movie though, I think the second movie would have a slightly darker theme, a theme that could also possibly pop up in Toy Story 3, but would really work well to the point of it being brilliant. The theme I imagine would have to be letting go of something, or something good. It's going to hurt you very hard, but sometimes it's the best for everyone in the end.
At least that's how I would see this movie if I were to have a say.
You're right. The ending of the first Monsters Inc. suggested a very large possibility for a sequel;
now I wouldn't say a "darker theme", I'd say a dramatic heart warming theme where a possible "Boo" is growing up.
Either way I've been waiting for this for years. And I couldn't be happier.
I love Ratatouille simply because it consists of two worlds; the talking animal world, and the real world, and the story gave balance between these two worlds. Also, animated food had never looked so good.
And Wall E is pure sci-fi goodness. Not a parody, not a clever homage or nod, but just a great piece of original writing. And the characterization of these characters are incredibly done, considering how much actual dialogue they have. In fact, I love how none of the robots in the movie look in any way human, nor have traditional human faces, but they can express such a wide range of emotions.
My reaction to the Monsters Inc. sequel is; excited, surprised, but not really.
Sorry, but I have to point this out every time someone brings up 'writers' in old, animated Disney movies: there weren't any writers, at least not in the traditional, 'writing a screenplay' sense. There were storymen who would come up with a brief film treatment and then storyboard all of it, but back then, scripts were not written for animated films.
The real reason why sequels with old Disney classics don't work is because none of them intended to have sequels to them. Walt Disney made it pretty clear that he hated the idea of sequels, as he preferred to explore new ideas rather than go back to the same story again. When asked about a possible sequel to the popular Three Little Pigs short, he famously replied, "You can't top pigs with pigs."
Now, that isn't to say that Pixar making a sequel is a bad idea, they just need to be careful with the new stories they come up with for the same setting and characters. It's gotta be fresh, but at the same time it has to relate to the first one somehow. Toy Story 2 was good in that respect. All the Disney straight-to-video sequels were not good in that respect.