Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Disney to Make Toy Story 3 Without Pixar 598

Posted by michael from the debian-naming-scheme-endangered dept.
rdurell writes "CNN is reporting that Disney has begun the process of setting up a new CGI studio with the goal of making Toy Story 3. Pixar has balked at the idea of another sequel thus far though Disney does own the rights to the franchise. Does this truly spell the end of the Disney-Pixar relationship? Can both Disney and Pixar live without the other?" We covered the Disney/Pixar breakup in January.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney to Make Toy Story 3 Without Pixar More

Disney to Make Toy Story 3 Without Pixar

Comments Filter:

  • The End? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zebbers ( 134389 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:37PM (#10834793)
    Disney has repeatedly fucked Pixar over. A toy story 3 without Pixar will suck, though it may not flop with Disneys brand recognition. Ive been waiting years for Pixar to sever ties with Disney.

    • Re:The End? (Score:5, Funny)

      by lucabrasi999 ( 585141 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:44PM (#10834886) Journal
      A toy story 3 without Pixar will suck

      Yeah, that's almost like Coppola making Godfather Part III without Bobby Duvall. Wait, they made Part III? And they used George Hamilton? Somebody call Eisner!!!

    • Re:The End? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by javaxman ( 705658 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:53PM (#10835042) Journal
      Why do you think that Disney movies don't flop due to brand recognition?

      Need examples? How about "Treasure Planet"? "80 Days"? "The Alamo"? "The Ladykillers"? "Raising Helen"?

      Oh, you want animated movies that were flops? There sure were those as well...

      Or do you mean the brand recognition of Toy Story, which is probably better than Disney right now?

      Maybe Disney will make a direct-to-video movie, like they did for The Lion King, Lilo & Stitch, etc... I rate that as highly likely. They'll make the movie on a budget, it'll suck, test audiences will tell them so, and it'll end up being a big direct-to-DVD money maker for them, but hardly ever see the light of a theater, if at all.

      That's my half-assed prediction, anyway. I'm going to do my best to avoid letting my son see any Disney-only Toy Story movie, lest the first two be ruined for him.

      • Re:The End? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Golias ( 176380 )
        Actually, Toy Story 2 was supposed to be the typical low-budget straight-to-video Disney sequel, but thanks to the way technology was moving, Pixar was able to do even better work with less money, and the early dailies looked so good that they convinced Disney to do it as a full theatrical release.

        I don't doubt that an el-cheapo Toy Story DVD for the kid's market is what this new project really is. They know how to turn that particular production plan into money, and have been doing so for years.

        • Re:The End? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sg3000 ( 87992 ) *
          > Toy Story 2 was supposed to be the typical low-budget
          > straight-to-video Disney sequel, but thanks to the way
          > technology was moving, Pixar was able to do even better work
          > with less money, and the early dailies looked so good that
          > they convinced Disney to do it as a full theatrical release.

          Actually, it wasn't the technology that sold it. Originally Toy Story 2 was supposed to be direct to video, but when Pixar worked out the story and started animating it, they found that it was actually

          • You're both wrong (Score:5, Interesting)

            by rjung2k ( 576317 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @06:46PM (#10837069) Homepage
            Pixar was in the middle of developing a shoddy direct-to-video Toy Story 2 when they realized such a thing would damage their reputation. John Lasseter specifically said, "We didn't want to be known as a studio that did great stuff and crap -- we want it all to be great."

            They pushed to make Toy Story 2 a theatrical release, tossed out the stuff they had done so far, retooled the story from the beginning, worked themselves to deliver a quality product, and the rest is history.

            Too bad any Disney-produced Toy Story 3 won't have half the love and care that Pixar gave to their movies.

      • Half Assed (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ackthpt ( 218170 ) *
        Why do you think that Disney movies don't flop due to brand recognition?

        I'm afraid Disney films are now flopping, due to name recognition. Disney has laid some real goose-eggs in the past few years:

        Need examples? How about "Treasure Planet"? "80 Days"? "The Alamo"? "The Ladykillers"? "Raising Helen"?

        Oh, you want animated movies that were flops? There sure were those as well...

        Or do you mean the brand recognition of Toy Story, which is probably better than Disney right now?

        Pixar doesn't need D

      • Re:The End? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Galvatron ( 115029 )
        Actually, I remember an article shortly before Lilo and Stitch came out about how each Disney animated movie since The Lion King has cost more, and grossed less. Lilo and Stitch cut way back on animation costs, looking to reverse the trends.

    • Re:The End? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yoda@nOSpAM.etoyoc.com> on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @04:04PM (#10835210) Homepage Journal
      Disney is going to find that at the end of the day, Pixar is the one with brand recognition. Their last couple of animation pieces have been horrible.

      Not on technical ground mind you. On writing, plot design, and general creativeness they failed. The very fact that their first movie is a sequel of a sequel should tell you where they are coming from. Disney, the mighty, seems to think the only way to put out a CGI movie of any credibility is to duplicate a previous effort.

      (Sigh). Well, my one year old doesn't know or care how long Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid have been out. It's all new to her. And I guess that's Disney's strategy.

      Walt is spinning in his grave.

      • Re:The End? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by The Snowman ( 116231 ) *

        Not on technical ground mind you. On writing, plot design, and general creativeness they failed. The very fact that their first movie is a sequel of a sequel should tell you where they are coming from. Disney, the mighty, seems to think the only way to put out a CGI movie of any credibility is to duplicate a previous effort.

        Disney used to be a creative powerhouse, releasing great movies on a regular schedule. Even if they did steal and bastardize fairy tails and public domain works, they did an excellent

        • Re:The End? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by wintermute1000 ( 731750 )
          I hate Michael Eisner as much as any Disney stockholder, but the name recognition Disney has in my generation is due mainly to masterpieces like Beauty and the Beast, the Lion King, and Aladdin--all of which were made under Eisner's watch. Don't oversimplify. It's partially his fault, but it sure as hell isn't all his fault. The whole freaking board of directors wants replacing, for one. But just take a look at what's happened at Disneyland over the past few months under new management and you'll see how qu

          • Re:The End? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by ZorinLynx ( 31751 )
            Actually, some people I talk to feel that the passing away of Frank Wells, former President of Walt Disney, was a major factor in Disney's turn to suckitude.

            Supposedly, Frank Wells was holding Eisner's "leash", and kept a lot of his bad ideas and business methods from seeing the light of day.

            When you consider that Frank Wells passed away in 1994, right when "The Lion King" was released, and that it's been downhill since then, this theory makes a lot of sense.

            Poor guy, he died before his time. (helicopter

        • Re:The End? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Jace of Fuse! ( 72042 )
          Then Eisner came into power, the Disney family left, and the board of directors stopped thinking about pushing creative talent to be creative, but pushing them to make movies just expensive enough and just good enough to ride the name recognition wave and turn a good profit.

          And NOW they're ruining The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as we speak.

      • Walt is spinning in his grave

        Quick! Hook him up to a generator and he can supply all the electricity needed to run Disney World!

    • been waiting years for Pixar to sever ties with Disney.

      So now we know. Steve Jobs secretly posts to /. as Zebbers.

    • Re:The End? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JohnsonWax ( 195390 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @05:29PM (#10836299)
      Well, bad news for Disney is that my kids (3 and 6) leap for joy and hollar when they see the Pixar/Luxo intro, but don't know Disney other than the Mickey sillhouette.

      For those that grew up with Toy Story being their first Disney film, the Disney brand recognition is pretty worthless in films.

      • Re:The End? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Spoing ( 152917 )
        1. For those that grew up with Toy Story being their first Disney film, the Disney brand recognition is pretty worthless in films.

        Two words: Disney Princesses.

        Many of the popular disney films have a 'princess' of some sort, and pre-teen girls love them.

        That said, Disney does not apeal nearly as much to the teen and up groups...let alone pre-teen boys. The brand is weak almost everywhere except for the fans of the princesses.

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by hambonewilkins ( 739531 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:38PM (#10834801)
    The new Indiana Jones movies will be directed by Paul W.S. Anderson and stars Freddie Prinze Jr.

    Further, the new season of Family Guy will be written by the folks from "Will and Grace."

    Just a couple more changes that will bring you sequels just as good as the originals.

    P.S. - Disney hasn't done anything original on their own in YEARS (nay, DECADES).

    • Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jejones ( 115979 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:44PM (#10834883) Journal
      P.S. - Disney hasn't done anything original on their own in YEARS (nay, DECADES).

      I must respectfully disagree. Lilo and Stitch was wonderful and not the stock issue Disney movie. (Admittedly, what they've done with the characters since then is truly sad.)
      • Yes, L&S the movie was pretty fun. L&S the TV series is sappy garbage.

        "Ohana means family" - *RETCH* - OK, that was in the movie as well, but they didn't drown it in honey and keep going on about it for hours.

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @04:31PM (#10835605)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:In other news... (Score:5, Informative)

        by asparagus ( 29121 ) <koonce&gmail,com> on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @04:37PM (#10835707) Homepage Journal
        L&S was the last Disney project to be produced by the Florida skunkworks (out from under the thumb of Eisner). Despite efforts to push his in-house projects, "The Emperor's New Groove" and "Treasure Planet", L&S proved what the animators were capable of without Eisner's excessive micromanagement. The response: elimination of the Florida studio, under the guise of cutting costs.

        That'll teach 'em to be original.

    • Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nizo ( 81281 )
      Err, how about Dinosaur [imdb.com]? The effects were done by Disney, totally CG (friend of a friend worked on it). Story was so-so but I thought the CG was good (ok lemurs and dinosaurs co-existing was stupid but eh). That said, Pixar is being sucked dry by Disney, and I am sadsadsad that Disney will probably be involved in any additional Incredibles sequel.

    • Keanu Reeves announced today that he himself will write, direct, produce, film and star in the Matrix Reloaded 2: Electric Boogaloo, despite legal threats from the Wachowski brothers. All roles will be played by him and will feature another hot scene between Neo (Reeves) and Trinity (Reeves) in a cave (Reeves). There will be no stunt or special effects work, everything you see will be real, or will it?, except the spoons.

  • You bet they can (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rabel ( 531545 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:38PM (#10834809)
    Pixar has outgrown Disney. The question is, can Disney survive without Pixar? I hearby predict the quality of the storyline for Toy Story 3 will be vastly inferior to the first two Toy Story movies.
    • Toy Story 3 will be vastly inferior to the first two Toy Story movies.

      Yeah.

      That's going out on a limb there butch.

      I don't know how you can be gutsy enough to make such bold predictions.

      What next? You gonna predict the sun will rise in the morning????

      • Re:You bet they can (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rabel ( 531545 )
        Sorry, Cassidy, my comment was a little too subtle for you.

        The point is, if Pixar were to make Toy Story 3, I wouldn't have made the same prediction.

  • Good luck with that Disney. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pherris ( 314792 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:39PM (#10834812) Homepage Journal
    Pixar films have a very unique style to them that IMO Disney won't be able to copy. Between having some of the best artists and best programmers in the world I think Disney is SOL. They just got too greedy and now Pixar going to hammer them.

    • Re:Good luck with that Disney. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SamSim ( 630795 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @04:31PM (#10835609) Homepage Journal
      More importantly, Pixar has some of the best writers. IMO the writing in any movie is far more important than the visuals. If one were to take the CGI out of - for example - Finding Nemo, you'd still have a fantastic movie because it can stand on story and dialogue alone.
    • If it sucks, Disney will pull the theatrical release and just make it a direct-to-video release, where parents will buy it by the millions and it will mostly avoid the sting of the critics.

      Disney has a history of follwing up acclaimed movies by releasing horrible animated sequels direct to video (e.g., Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin), so nobody will really pay it any mind if it blows chunks.

      Pixar, on the other hand, doesn't have that same luxury. The public expects Pixar films to rock our world, and a miss

      • Re:Disney always has an "out" (Score:4, Interesting)

        by System.out.println() ( 755533 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @06:41PM (#10837001) Journal
        I'm not sure why no one likes the Cars trailer... But then, I thought Monsters, Inc, looked stupid and it turned out to be one of my favorite movies, and I'm not making that mistake again :P
        • I think no one likes the Cars trailer because it doesn't reveal any of the plot. I, at least, have no idea what it's going to be about (well, cars obviously, but more specifically), so there's no way I could tell if it would be interesting to me or not. Also, despite having faces, I don't think the cars seem human enough to empathize with.

          Speaking of faces, what's with Pixar's fascination with buck teeth? The truck had them, the sheep had them, and the jackalope had them! Does one of their animators ha
          • I guess that what struck me the most about Cars is that the concept already looks so bland. Each of the Pixar films to this point has pushed the boundaries of what the technology and the character animators could do. Maybe I'm just more of a 3D connoisseur than the average Joe.

            The Cars trailer was just wholly unimpressive. Animated cartoony cars... yawn. Max Fleisher was doing that kind of stuff over half a century ago. It doesn't exactly push the boundaries, even if it is 3D.

            Granted, Pixar may very well

  • Already Split (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Forthan Red ( 820542 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:39PM (#10834816)
    Pixar's realized it doesn't need Disney (all they've done lately is act as distributers). Disney killed their golden goose in an effort to grab a little more profit for themselved.
  • and that it quickly becomes a direct to video failure. C'mon Disney, is mining existing properties all that you have left in you? What happened to creativity anyhow?
    • Didn't Disney pretty much abandon creativity with the death of Walt?
    • What happened to creativity anyhow? It left with Roy Disney when they kicked him out... granted, Roy was no Walt, but at least he tried.

    • What happened to creativity anyhow?


      The locked it in the Disney vault.

    • Where all good ideas come to die (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @04:26PM (#10835557)
      "What happened to creativity anyhow"

      The name's Eisner, Michael Eisner.

      I used to work for Disney. I called it creative purgatory. The company is so inbred that there is little hope for change without a radical shake up. I think realistically the only way of fixing the company is for a hostile take over that would allow for changing most of the executive staff and eventually most of the surpervisers. The inbreding goes all the way from top to bottom. We used to call them second and third generation as in the family had worked for Disney that many generations. Even worse now is it's all Eisner's cronies and their friends. Most have no creative ability. Creative people are often seen as a threat and tend not to do well. Personally I quit and you couldn't pay me enough to go back. The joke is if Walt were alive I'd have stayed with the company for life. They're ruined the best company in Hollywood and the box office reflects the disaster it's become.

  • Expect funny sidekicks (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tibor the Hun ( 143056 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:39PM (#10834823)
    I'm sure it'll be a heart-warming family story, with both Buzz AND Woody having 2 funny sidekicks each!
    (The story will actually just be a recycled Hansel and Gretel story)

  • Stop Disney (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tbo ( 35008 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:39PM (#10834824) Journal
    *Sigh*. Disney will ruin it--I don't think anything decent has come out of Disney in the past five or ten years, aside from the Pixar stuff. Does anyone know if Disney owns the rights to The Incredibles sequel? That would be really unfortunate...

    Perhaps Pixar can buy the rights back.

    • Re:Stop Disney (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jhkoh ( 588461 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:49PM (#10834966)
      Does anyone know if Disney owns the rights to The Incredibles sequel?

      Not exactly. Here's more informatino, from an earlier post of mine quoting CNN [slashdot.org]:

      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.

    • Re:Stop Disney (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cjpez ( 148000 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @04:30PM (#10835592) Homepage Journal
      I don't think anything decent has come out of Disney in the past five or ten years
      Occasionally Disney will pull some absolutely incredible stunt, like The Emperor's New Groove (which, by all rights and means, should have been horrible), or releasing the Miyazaki films in the US (Spirited Away at least). I'm always shocked when they end up doing something like that, because it seems so out of character nowadays, but it does happen.

  • Damn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nexzus ( 673421 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:40PM (#10834830)
    Toy Story 1 and 2 are my favourite Full CG Cartoons.

    On one hand, I would love to see another iteration of the story. On the other hand, Disney has the habit (since about 95) of turning everything to crud.

    I don't think they can pull off what made the first two so magical and special.

  • Disney has a chance (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr Guy ( 547690 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:40PM (#10834833) Journal
    With Eisner intending to step down, Disney may have a chance to get back to the role they played of wholesome fun. Right now they are cliched and trite. They went from inspiring imagination to the poster children of proving that trademarks don't spark innovation.

    I don't recall Walt ever drawing Mickey Mouse as a dirty dirty whore, but that's what he's become, pimped out around the world.

    • Re:Disney has a chance (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dead sun ( 104217 ) <[aranach] [at] [gmail.com]> on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @04:09PM (#10835282) Homepage Journal
      A couple people I know took a history of the animation of Walt Disney class at the University of Minnesota. If I recall correctly, I heard them talking about a bit in the textbook which discusses that Walt did have to tone down Mickey and Minnie because they were drawn as filth. They smoked, drank, and were generally not aimed at children. Maybe Mickey's just come to be symbolically what he started as.

      As for Eisner stepping down, that would be wonderful news. After the bit with ousting Roy Disney, who is apparently going to start up a new shop, Disney the company may have put itself between a rock and a hard place. Disney themselves haven't done much in the name of decent "traditional" animation films for quite some time, save Lilo & Stitch. They've also been killing their legacy with crappy sequels. And even their legacy is largely ideas stolen from others.

      On the 3D computer graphics front there's Pixar as the power player, now firmly established as the talent behind the Disney/Pixar efforts. Dreamworks has demonstrated solid CG distribution with Shrek and Shrek 2. Now Disney Co. thinks it can become the new player, make a sequel to a hit (which they always mess up), and displace the actual talent in the field? Dream on.

      My advice to Disney: Get a writer or two. Come up with a halfway interesting and unique story of your own for once. Make it something that will capture an audience on the merits of a story. Pixar has shown us all that CG lets us get closer to characters of our imaginations, and to use the CG to back the story, rather than just for pretty effects.

      It figures that the first CG style film Disney will do without Pixar ends in the number 3.

  • Pixar... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Snowbeam ( 96416 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:40PM (#10834836) Homepage
    Pixar will go on to do great things. Disney should have stuck with them. Pixar was fresh blood for Disney and they just gave that up. What were they thinking.

  • Pixar can do much better (Score:5, Interesting)

    by catbutt ( 469582 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:41PM (#10834842)
    without having to keep their stuff as purely kid-friendly and cutesy as Disney requires. The Incredibles was a step in the more-adult direction, but without Disney, they could do whatever their creative minds come up with, even if it is far edgier than a Disney cartoon.

    Of course, I speak as an adult fan of their work, not as a stockholder, nor as a 5 year old hoping for stuff my prudish parents will take me to.

  • Dis-mal (Score:3, Insightful)

    by White Roses ( 211207 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:41PM (#10834843)
    Since almost all of the other sequels to successful franchises that Disney has made in the past are uniformly horrible with little additional character development and plots left over from the original, I sincerely doubt this will be any good.

    As Skinner would say, though, "Prove me wrong, kids! Prove me wrong."

  • Please God... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <jhummel&johnhummel,net> on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:42PM (#10834858) Homepage
    I really don't care if Pixar or Disney get along.

    But I beg of You, please, PLEASE!

    Don't let the same people who brought us Cinderella II: Now it's just for 2 year olds, Little Mermaid II: The Sea Shells got Bigger and the Story got Dumber, Lion King 1 1/2: The Pointless Version, and Pocohontas II: We Just Can't Take Historical Innacuracy with a Native American Pamela Anderson Clone Far Enough make "Toy Story 3".

    I don't think it if I had to suffer my children asking me for another movie where Andy loses his Woody again, and the kids take a trip to Neverland Ranch to find it.

    Oh, and thanks for Metroid Prime II.

    Amen.
    • Will the original voice talent stand for this? Could you see Tom Hanks voicing Woody again if the script sucked? I don't think so. In fact, I would be willing to bet that most of those actors will hold out.

      It sure would suck for disney to find other vocals here...

      • Will the original voice talent stand for this?
        Disney made an Aladdin sequel [imdb.com] without Robin Williams voicing the genie. Why should the lack of original voice talent change things now?

      • Will the original voice talent stand for this? Could you see Tom Hanks voicing Woody again if the script sucked? I don't think so. In fact, I would be willing to bet that most of those actors will hold out.

        I've already seen quotes from Hanks saying he's not sure he'd sign up for a Toy Story 3 since it would no longer be the same creative team. He didn't say no, but it was a big wait-and-see depending on how Disney runs the show.

        What I want to know is if Pixar would be contractually obligated to hand ove

  • Toy Story 3 to Suck Superclusters Thru Buckytubes (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:43PM (#10834871)
    Submitter: I fixed your headline for you. (Don't like it? Gimme a break, I've only got so many characters to describe how hard it's gonna suck.)

    The interesting question for the next 5 years: Now that PIXR is free from the creative and financial shackles of DIS, will they be able to get their movies shown?

    Or will DIS be able to use its distribution muscle to keep it out of theaters long enough to starve PIXR of revenue, and to serve as a warning to current "partners" that You Don't Fuck With The Mouse.

  • Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Billobob ( 532161 ) <billobob@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:43PM (#10834876) Homepage Journal
    Can Pixar survive without Disney? Absolutely, their movies pretty much market themselves these days. Can Disney movies survive without Pixar? Only if they get out of their post-95 crap slump.

  • Bad for Disney, Worse for Pixar? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by djtripp ( 468558 ) <djtripp&gmail,com> on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:44PM (#10834894) Homepage Journal
    When people talk about Toy Story, Finding Nemo, et al, they are talking about Pixar, not Disney. If they create a talentless, storyless, yet nicely animated sequel, it will do more damage to Pixar, because many people will believe it is a Pixar venture.

    Disney could hire a great crew, and make a great "looking" film, but it would lack the substance and all the Pixary goodness that makes their films, well, a Pixar film.

  • Disney's Track Record.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:45PM (#10834903)
    Then, after Toy Story 3, they will launch Toy Story: The Series, daily on the Disney Channel. Of course, it will be hastily put together and have completely flat graphics created as cheaply as possibly. They'll also be releasing direct-to-video sequals until people are so tired of it that the brand is useless. Then they'll wait 5 years and "rerelease" the original toy story to theaters, and come up with a "new" DVD set containing the original and all sequals. Of course, they'll do this just in time for the holidays and get all new Toy Story toys, books, ice cream, cereal, shoes, clothing, etc. Only then, after this dies down, will they consider the franchise "milked." If you don't like the way Disney operates, you're not alone [savedisney.com]

  • So... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Moby Cock ( 771358 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:45PM (#10834904) Homepage
    Will Disney be getting back into 2D animation again? After the debacle with Treasure Planet it seems to me that they have decided to forgo the idea of continuing the 2D flms. If they are going to focus their efforts on 3D it does make sense to sever ties with Pixar. If their future is in 3D then they need to increase their in-house experience in this realm. It seems a shame to stop the 2D stuff, but kids obviously prefer the 3D stuff. Disney is not about making art, and they know it, they are an entertainment company that churns out the stuff that sells. I don't think the Toy Story 3 will be any less of a hit without Pixar. I, for one, do not understand why Pixar is given such a vaunted status. The origibal Toy Story was something new and they deserved praise, but ever since they have just been re-jigging the formula.

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Minwee ( 522556 ) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:53PM (#10835034) Homepage
      I corrected a few spelling errors in your post:

      Will Disney be getting back into good animation again? After the debacle with Treasure Planet it seems to me that they have decided to forgo the idea of continuing the good flms. If they are going to focus their efforts on crap it does make sense to sever ties with Pixar. If their future is in crap then they need to increase their in-house experience in this realm. It seems a shame to stop the good stuff, but kids obviously prefer the crap. Disney is not about making art, and they know it, they are an entertainment company that churns out the stuff that sells.

      Hope this helps.

    • Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by GlassHeart ( 579618 )
      I, for one, do not understand why Pixar is given such a vaunted status. The origibal Toy Story was something new and they deserved praise, but ever since they have just been re-jigging the formula.

      What formula? A Bug's Life was about friendship, but it was also about fitting into the ultimate socialist society of ants. Monster's Inc. was about friendship, but it was also about people not being who they seem to be, even when they look like monsters. Finding Nemo is about the power of a parent's love for

  • ...and it will suck without Pixar's writing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FearUncertaintyDoubt ( 578295 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:48PM (#10834954)
    Pixar employs great writers. I think the best thing about Pixar is that they tell a great story. There are few cheap jokes (unlike bathroom humor in Shrek, for instance) or overly cutesy stuff that adults roll their eyes at (like in most Disney films). There are lots of little jokes, subtle humor, and satire in Pixar films. Disney stuff looks cool but you never forget you're watching a movie for kids. The writing is hokey and stiff.

    My guess is that the writers are given much more freedom and control at Pixar than at Disney. So maybe if Disney learned something from the experience, they can do it. But most likely not.

  • Looking forward to 'grown up' Pixar movies (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Neil Watson ( 60859 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:48PM (#10834959) Homepage
    I am hoping that, with Disney out of the picture Pixar may create more mature movies. I love what they have done so far but, I feel Pixar has so much more potential.

    • Re:Looking forward to 'grown up' Pixar movies (Score:4, Interesting)

      by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @05:16PM (#10836172) Homepage
      More mature like what? Final Fantasy, The Movie? I don't there's much of a market for animated adult movies outside of Japan. Pixar does one thing, and does it well: they make great 3D animations, in the style of great 2D animations, ie, for kids. Even The Simpsons, one of the only animations that appeals equally to adults and kids, STILL appeals to kids. One of the other reasons Pixar is so successful is that its stories focus on inanimate/nonhuman/nonexistant characters. Sure, there were a few humans here and there, but they were still cartoonish. It's much easier to suspend disbelief when you're watching something cartoonish, as opposed to trying to make realistic people. And even if they succeeded in achieving realism, you'd still have to establish a genre by convincing people such a thing is more than just a novelty.. not an easy thing to do.

      *Was I the only one who thought Shark Tale sucked, by the way? What a cheap attempt at trying to steal some limelight from Finding Nemo.

  • Well, Pixar will be fine... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:49PM (#10834969)
    ... they have never made a bad film. Their creativity is mindboggling: easily the best Western animation around [1].

    Disney, though... I don't know. Their homegrown films haven't been so great lately. They can reissue DVDs of their back catalogue, they can keep milking the Mouse [2], but with Pixar and Dreamworks producing material as good as they have been, Disney have got to raise the bar. Toy Story 3 is a risky move. Obviously, Marketing will insist on it, but if Toy Story 3 sucks, Disney have a big problem. Toy Story 3 has to be better than either of the first two if Disney want to stay in this game.

    [1]: in case you're wondering: IMHO the best in the world is still Miyazaki. I haven't yet seen The Incredibles or Hauru no Ugoku Shiro, thougo.
    [2]: did anyone ever actually find Mickey Mouse funny? I always preferred Bugs and Daffy. It's a bit like Charlie Chaplin vs Laurel and Hardy, I suppose.

    • Re:Well, Pixar will be fine... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:58PM (#10835123) Journal
      Mickey was never supposed to be funny by himself, he and Donald were generally a comic foil to others, like Pluto, Goofy, or Chip n' Dale.

      And it's no great secret that Disney was always geared more towards children and feature-quality animation, whereas WB were trying to do all-ages animated shorts. Disney toons were always less violent, and less "crass". So it's no surprise that people outgrow the old Disney shorts and not Bugs or Tom and Jerry.

      Hell, a passing glance can tell you which set of toons had the better animation. WB was all about cheap laughs after the newsreel.

      Just because you dont like the Disney corporation of today, is no reason to diss the work of it's creator, or the early Disney folks.

    • Hauru no Ugoku Shiro

      It's based off of a British novel; it's all right to call it by its English name. ;3

  • Pixar is the sniznit ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dougmc ( 70836 ) <dougmc+slashdot@frenzied.us> on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:49PM (#10834970) Homepage
    Can both Disney and Pixar live without the other?
    Pixar keeps hitting them out of the park, movie after movie after movie. Nemo was great, and the Incredibles is even better ...

    Pixar does NOT need Disney. Maybe they're not really equipped to distribute their own movies, but they could certainly either become equipped or find somebody else who is. They have enough name recognition of their own that they don't need Disney anymore.

    Disney, on the other hand ... what's the last movie they did by themselves? Operation Dumbo Drop? Pocahantas II?

    • Re:Pixar is the sniznit ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MikeMacK ( 788889 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @04:08PM (#10835265)
      Pixar is now in the same position Lucas is in at Lucasfilm. Does Lucas have trouble finding anyone to distribute "Star Wars" films, no, 20th Century Fox is happy to do it, they know they will make lots of money. The same with Pixar, I would be AMAZED if they had any trouble finding a distributor.

  • Last gasp for Disney Animation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:50PM (#10834989) Homepage Journal
    It is, of course, too early to completely write of Toy Story 3 as crap just yet. Disney has pulled amazing things out of their hat before - just look at "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Lion King" after what was a very serious slump indeed. Then again, we really are into seriously derivative work here - spinning a part 3 to what is someone elses work doesn't exactly represent the spark of originality that is often required for "new beginnings".

    The reality is, however, that this could be the end of Disney as the great purveyor of animated feature films. They were king for a long time, but there is very serious competition in the field now (Dreamworks SKG, Pixar, Studio Ghibli), and all of Disney's "recent successes" have been acting as a distributor for someone elses film. If Disney is to continue to command any respect in the animated feature film arena it is going to need to produce it's own high quality work very soon (as everyone else is gaining enoug status to not require Disney as a distributor anymore).

    Realistically Toy Story 3 would be the last real chance for Disney to prove itself. All their hand animated fare has been drivel of late, and they are deperately in need of a fresh approach. A CGI film might be the way. If Toy Story 3 sinks though, I suspect it will be the end of Disney as a serious player in animated feature films. They may surprise me, but I don't think they have anything else left in them, and the competition is just too strong.

    My bet: Goodbye Disney animation.

    Jedidiah.

  • Farewell, Woody. Goodbye, Buzz (Score:5, Funny)

    by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @03:58PM (#10835110) Homepage Journal
    You were a good act, but the new management will not know how to make proper use of you.

    I see great ugliness in your future. Bad songs, adorable kid side-kicks, B-list actors supplying your voices, and TOY STORY 2 1/2, in which your badly rendered future selves travel back in time and bastardize your second adventure in the interest of reviving flagging DVD sales.

    We should have known the franchise was in trouble when Disney allowed images of the valiant space ranger to be stamped on disposable training pants.

    Farewell.

    Stefan

  • This might actually be a smart move for Disney... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Angostura ( 703910 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @04:10PM (#10835303)
    Consider for a moment; they have a tremendous amount of catch-up to do, in terms of software and 3D animation know-how. Would they be able to produce something straight from cold that was a barnstorming success? I doubt it.

    So instead they are starting off by attempting to reverse engineer an animated movie that was state of the art 10 years ago (probably 11 years by the time they make it).

    They can tool-up, do their homework and create an apprentice-piece that people will pay to watch - it probably won't be great, but it will pay for itself, and the Disney R&D.
    • Consider for a moment; they have a tremendous amount of catch-up to do, in terms of software and 3D animation know-how. Would they be able to produce something straight from cold that was a barnstorming success? I doubt it.

      They had a top-notch 3D shop. The Secret Lab [aintitcool.com]. You know, the people that did Dinosaur, the digital dogs in 102 Dalmatians, and lots of other VFX and animation for Disney's features. They shut the division down a couple of years ago. Now they're starting over again.

  • Hell yes for Pixar (Score:4, Insightful)

    by EZmagz ( 538905 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @04:12PM (#10835325) Homepage
    Can both Disney and Pixar live without the other?"

    Without question Pixar can do fine on their own without Disney's help distributing. The real question is, can Disney survive without Pixar? As my magic-8 ball says, "Outlook not so good."

    Pixar's done enough impressive work over the course of the last 5 or 6 years to estabilish a firm role as #1 in the animated film niche. Their track record is near flawless, with each film building on and improving the underlying technologies used to create each flick. Honestly, who here doesn't dream of running through Pixar's renderfarms like a kid in a candystore? Point is, every movie pretty much kicks ass at the box office. And that's what counts from a business perspective.

    Disney, on the otherhand, might take a huge hit. Their only real role with these movies has been to distribute the films, and each time Pixar releases a new feature they become less and less dependent on Disney's reputation as a backer to ensure success. What else has Disney done lately? Yeah they pull in boatloads of money through merchandising via Disneyworld, toys, and shit like that. Depending on Mickey Mouse dolls for income though isn't a strong business model. And with each crappy film that tanks, I bet Michael Eisner's feeling better and better about jumping ship in a year.

    But then again, I'm too lazy to quote numbers and statistics to back up anything I've said. In reality I've just never been impressed with Disney, even as a child, and wouldn't mind seeing them sweat a bit when Pixar high tails it.

  • Well.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by NerveGas ( 168686 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @06:13PM (#10836734)

    Weren't we flooded with marketing hype some time ago about video cards that could render Toy Story in real-time? Goodbye, Pixar, hello $10/hour high-school student with a GeForce 6800 Ultra.

    (Yes, that's a joke.)

    steve

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close