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?"

Toy Story

[Anonymous Coward]

The sequal to Toy Story was better than the original.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[piojo]

Now if John Lasseter leaves, then we might be able to talk about Pixar going downhill.

And that's not even a sure thing, considering how much he cares about mentoring younger directors.

Re:Sequels are not always bad

[MarcoAtWork]

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

Re:Nothing to worry about

[nine-times]

Well the larger problem here is what the sequels indicate: Disney is getting its way.

Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years. Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)? I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago. It's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney can't think of or even appreciate new ideas. The big question a few years back was, "When Disney buys Pixar, will Pixar be able to maintain their independence, or will Disney's 'creative' minds start steering the ship?"

I don't know if we really have a complete and definitive answer, since Pixar may have enough talent to make these sequels good. What's more it might be that these sequels are a blip, and after them we'll get a rash of original characters and story-lines. On the other hand, this doesn't seem like a good sign.

Blame Disney

[dFaust]

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

These are sequels that people actually want

[leamanc]

When Steve Jobs sold Pixar to Disney (and became Disney's largest shareholder in the process), he said (paraphrasing here) that Disney should stop pissing on its legacy and cranking out direct-to-DVD sequels of decades-old classics. Believe me, he is not a fan of sequels just as a cash-grab.

But, these planned Pixar sequels are films that people actually want to see. They have been demanding them. I'm surprised to not see an Incredibles sequel on the list, because there are a lot of folks that want that one too.

I am not disappointed by this news. All of these will be great movies. I wish they could squeeze in some original flicks among the sequels, but I'm not worried about it. They are giving the fans what they want, and will blow us away with the next original Pixar movie when it comes out.

BTW, Up was great; better than Ratatouille and WALL-E, in my opinion. Mad props to Pixar for giving a great actor like Ed Asner a starring role in a high-budget blockbuster film at the age of 76. The man's earned the right to rake in some serious royalty cash for himself and his heirs.

Re:Nothing to worry about

[iluvcapra]

Well the larger problem here is what the sequels indicate: Disney is getting its way

Well, they do own them after all... All of the original Pixar principals have made millions over the sale to DIS, and have been handsome rewarded for the operation up thru Incredibles. It's up to Disney to make the operation work after this point.

Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years. [...] It's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney can't think of or even appreciate new ideas.

I would say it's common knowledge that Disney has been turning out product that most /.ers would consider utter dreck but make just gobs of money in the market, selling happy, safe entertainment to parents who want something for their tweens that won't bore them -- face it, Up is a superb movie but it does miss the "worry-free entertainment" mark.

FD. I've worked on several Disney films and was the sound co-supervisor of High School Musical 3, so I'm a bit sensitive to the whole "dreck" business... But we good, we good! :)

copyright

[bcrowell]

>>Pixar-style CG movies are kind of a unique and interesting example of a purely digital form of entertainment that absolutely can't exist without copyright laws.

>But do Pixar-style CG films require a 95-year copyright term?

If I had to make a completely uninformed guess, I'd say that they required at least a 5-year copyright term.

What on earth is wrong with sequels?

[goldcd]

Plenty wrong with 'bad' sequels, made entirely to cash in - but not with sequels per se.
Off the top of my head, they already made one with Toy Story 2 - which in my and most people's opinion was better than the original.
As to the comment below about falling returns, these films are going to be generating money for decades (think of the Disney back-catalogue that's getting continuously re-released to much fan-fare every few years).

Re:No

[Keeper Of Keys]

Nice observations! The Incredibles is my favourite Pixar film, but I hope they don't do a sequel. The main problem with these sequels (Ice Age is another that should have been left well alone) is that the circumstances which bring the characters to where they are by the end is what makes them appealing, and what makes the story work. When the curtain rises on the sequel, they've already arrived, and - unless you get Joss Whedon to write your script* - no further character development seems possible or even wanted.

(*Actually, I've changed my mind - please let's have an Incredibles sequel scripted by Joss Whedon!)

Nowehere near as cool?

[edremy]

Am I the only person who enjoyed The Incredibles at first, but after thinking about the philosophies behind it got rather queasy?

The main villain in the movie is an incredibly intelligent kid, capable of dreaming up and engineering devices that give him superpowers. This isn't good enough though- you have to be *born* with the powers to be of any value. Never mind that Buddy/Syndrome was fully capable of being a superhero, and indeed wanted desperately to be one- Mr. Incredible dismisses him with disgust, and he ends up a villain because of that rejection. It reminds me a lot of the football player picking on the geeky kid because he's not as strong or handsome.

Compare that to the messages in the rest of the Pixar films such as Up or Wall-E, and somehow the film ends up more than a bit tarnished.

Re:No

[norminator]

I think your comment mostly holds, but the Incredibles family is really not much (or really, any) more dysfunctional than any family today. A lot of what makes the show interesting and relatable is that, as a commenter above pointed out, the family members' powers are all based on real family stereotypes. They fight, they argue, they whine, they nag, they get bored and dissatisfied. The "dysfunction" is absolutely normal.

That said, The Incredibles is definitely in my top 3 Pixar movies, and a sequel would be much more natural than it would be for Monsters, Inc., or for Cars. Even if they skip the whole UnderMiner story line from the close of the first movie (or maybe especially if they skip it), they can build a very complex story about the continuing evolution of the family, with their roles in society and in their own home.