Pixar's Next Three Films Will Be Sequels

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?"

Bullshit

[piojo]

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.

Baseless Speculation

[jarbrewer]

A quick google search of Pixar's production schedule [blogspot.com] might have told the poster, or even the editor, that 2 of Pixar's next 3 movies are in fact new franchises.

Sigh.

Flatly Untrue

[Snowspinner]

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

[Blackeagle_Falcon]

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...

[dr00g911]

Both incorrect itself (or couldn't even be bothered with IMDB) and its assumptions are misquoted blogspam.

So, let's see, confirmed on Pixar's future agenda (as we know now);

Toy Story 3 (2010) [imdb.com]

John Carter of Mars (2012) [imdb.com]

1906 [imdb.com]

Plus speculation in Variety from several days ago about Monsters, Inc 2 possibly being Docter's next film that has suffered a little in the blogspam reporting (ie accuracy), resulting in the OMG SEQUALZ?!? meme we're soaking in today...

Also speculation: various rumored Mater spin-off movies from Cars. Yes, Larry the Cable Guy might get his own... vehicle (ouch). God help us all, but it'd be a goldmine.

Re:TFA is...

[dr00g911]

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

The Bear and the Bow (2011) [wikia.com]

Newt (2012) [wikia.com]

Also worth noting is that the last I checked, Andrew Stanton was attached to John Carter of Mars, however it wasn't confirmed that Pixar/Disney would be distributing. There has been conflicting info on the matter, and it's ambiguous at the moment.

No.

[stonecypher]

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.)

Re:well, the economy does suck

[tverbeek]

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.

Re:No

[Wamellx]

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

[Devout_IPUite]

But first they should read the damn article. The article clearly says there will be new content by the time Monsters Inc 2 is out, so that's not 'the next 3' that's just 'some 3'.

Re:well, the economy does suck

[TheRealMindChild]

Numbers like this are misleading. Sure, 5bn in revenue may have been from Cars merchandise, but that doesn't mean that it was because of the Cars branding. For instance, I went to Toys R Us to buy a bed tent for my daughter for her birthday. The only option was Cars. Had I had a boy, I would have just grabbed it, whether he has even heard of the movie or not.

Re:already happening

[Brian Gordon]

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:Blame Disney

[Enderandrew]

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.

Re:already happening

[Kumiorava]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you only list US gross, the films, you know, are shown around the world!

e.g. Wall-e 180 mill to make, WORLD gross 534 mil, Profit 350 mil, sounds a lot better than your 43 mil profit. I am sure they are disappointed making a profit of 350 million on a film.

You also ignore the side marketing, as stated in the article, Cars alone has taken in $5 billion in merchandising.

Re:No

[xeoron]

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:already happening

[carlzum]

US box office gross is an afterthought. Cars [wikipedia.org], 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:already happening

[scubamage]

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

[Tuoqui]

Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org] nuff said

Re:already happening

[Rakarra]

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.

Re:No

[TheoMurpse]

That's a misrecollection. I read an interview back with either Ralph Eggleston or John Lasseter back when Toy Story 2 was announced that Pixar was not happy. They didn't want to make sequels, but because of their contract with Disney, Disney had the right to make sequels to Pixar films without Pixar's involvement. Disney was in prep to make Toy Story 2, but Pixar agreed to make Toy Story 2 so Disney wouldn't run it into the ground. Despite being effectively "forced" to make TS2 to avoid having any part of their franchise/good will destroyed and not wanting to make the film, they tried their best to make a great film. IMHO, they succeeded.

I wonder if the same thing has happened here. I hope the artistic success happens again.

Re:No

[nizo]

BTW tidbit most folks may not know: Joss Whedon worked on the screenplay for Toy Story (go check imdb).

Re:Wwww-a-a-a-ll-Eee

[Harry Coin]

So I don't think there's any point trying to come up with explanations for it, it just seems that all the robots in the movie have anthropomorphic tendencies. No exceeding of programming required. Most of the other robots were too distracted by their jobs to explore their own potential, whereas Wall-E had fsck all to do really and started building cities and tinkering with junk he found.

Do yourself a favor and watch it again. Judge it on its own merits, not in relation to the ad campaign. Notice how it's not only the robots who are too distracted to explore their own potential, but the humans as well. The story is not about AI, it's about how getting dirty, doing the hard work, and following your curiosity will build better character than having your every whim catered to you. That, and don't litter.