Another sequel.
No.
No no no no no no no no no no no no.
There can not be a Toy Story 4. The ending to 3 was perfect.
I understand how they can continue, but I don't want them to. I don't know…it just feels wrong.
Pixar movies
-
-
The hell? No. NO!!! They just can't!!! Toy Story 3 was the perfect finale. The entire Toy Story franchise is exceptional for being one of the very few true strong trilogies.. There just isn't room for Toy Story 4. They shouldn't ruin an awesome franchise at the last minute. I have great faith in Pixar but the finality of Toy Story 3 was so great that there couldn't possibly be any more story to tell.
-
Np Pixar, no. there has to be a line drawn in the sand. NO TOY STORY 4.
I understand that you somehow managed to keep your creative integrity on part 3, it was a fully satisfying conclusion and that it made a billion dollars in theaters alone… but NO PART 4 DANGIT!
The shorts in front of the movies are enough (and even then I prefer the creativity of totally original shorts.)
-
I was against there being a Toy Story 3…but Pixar made it work. But 4? Where!? How!?
I think the Pixar braintrust better just get into a think tank and start coming up with new ideas instead of becoming caught in the sequel trap. (or...at least give us Incredibles 2)
Y'know, Negima WAS awesome…
For the first 18 volumes.
-
It will be about Andy regretting his choice of letting go of his toys. It will end with him being a fat loner in his mothers house. Playing, crying, forever alone.
-
@Tokoro:
I think the Pixar braintrust better just get into a think tank and start coming up with new ideas instead of becoming caught in the sequel trap. (or…at least give us Incredibles 2)
I loved Incredibles. Its my second favorite Pixar. Why am I the only one that doesn't want a sequel?
Is it BECAUSE I've seen so many super hero comics and cartoons so I feel I know all the obvious avenues it could go down and those bore me? Because I realize that what made the movie work wasn't the superhero antics, but the very specific family problems they had, which they overcame by the end?
Just having them go off on another caper, another adventure, seems like it would be empty to me. You'd have to come up with something engaging and interesting for all 6 of the leads and… that's hard. (The entire family, including Jack Jack, AND Frozone) More characters or bigger explosions or threats? I dunno. I just can't think of anything that would capture the same experience, and obviously Brad Bird has a hard time with it too. If the spinof comics or video games are any indication...
Really I'd rather they just keep doing new and different stuff and experimenting. Something different every time is great.
-
Wait. What?!?
How can they even consider Toy Story 4!?
-
For those who haven't seen it yet:
Gives me high hopes that Pixar won't run out of ideas. The last movie I saw from Pixar was Toy Story 3. Cars just was a dumb concept to me, so I didn't bother watching the sequel. -
Wait. What?!?
How can they even consider Toy Story 4!?
Heaps of praise upon part 3 for being a rare good third movie, merchandise, and a billion dollars at the box office. Reasons to CONSIDER it are plentiful, and it SHOULD run through their minds a few times. But they shouldn't linger on it.
I hope it was just Tom Hanks just talking though. Even with all their built up trust, they just… really shouldn't. I'd hate for them to fall into the sequel pit of other studios, they're already skirting the edges with so many in such a short period.
All that said...
For those who havn't seen it yet:
Finally, the actual trailer, no longer in bootleg quality! Looks niiice.
-
If they make Toy Story 4, It will be for the money.
TS 3 was the kind of ending that screams no sequel. I don't know what kind of plot they will make next. I think a decent plot would be a rescue mission of the toys that were sold or donated before the events of the 3rd film.
About the brave trailer: I am not sure if I like the idea of Pixar trying to be more epic (especially with the big voice). What I like about Pixar is their abilities to tell a fun and good story for kids and adults. I am not personally fond of Medieval or Middle age settings.
-
To be honest, they have the opportunity to write a completely new plot that has nothing to do with the first 3. New owner, new toys, new directions.
It's almost like a reboot.
I still don't think they should do it, but I completely understand why. They have unlimited opportunities with the story and characters.
Who knows, maybe they can do the impossible and make four fantastic movies for one series.
-
I keep expecting the Brave trailer to end with a punchline every time I see it, like the Bear suddenly has the voice of Nathan Lane and makes a joke and the girl gets all mad and and goes "don't sneak up on me like that Fursley!!!" and then suddenly an AC/DC song kicks in with a heeeelarious montage.
But that keeps not happening so I'm pretty glad.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Also i guess i should do my own pixar list, take note i haven't seen some of these for awhile, and there's no Incredibles cuz ive never seen it, no cars 2 either
1. Up
2. Wall-E
3. Toy Story
4. Finding Nemo
5. Ratatouille
6. Toy Story 3
7. Toy Story 2
8. A Bug's Life
9. Monsters Inc
10. Cars -
Another sequel.
…
takes a deep breath
Okay, this was definitely an unneeded sequel. But "In Pixar I Trust".
Also, Brave looks GORGEOUS. I sense another opening night viewing from me.
-
I too thought the trailer was going to end with something goofy, but Pixar might be taking a level of badass in this feature. I wonder if they'll be pushing a more serious story than usual here.
I hope they do. I'd like to see what limit they could go with that kind of route.
Not that I'm knocking on the other films, mind. -
Ranking them? Okay.
01. The Incredibles
02. Toy Story
03. Toy Story 3
04. Wall-E
05. Ratatouille
06. Finding Nemo
07. Monsters Inc
08. Toy Story 2
09. UP
10. Cars
11. A Bug's Life
12. Cars 2The list has shaken up a bit since the last time I did this. Cars 2 made me appreciate the original more.
Four through seven are pretty much interchangeable. Some days I just like one of the more than the other.
-
01. Up
02. Ratatouille
03. Monster Inc.
04. Finding Nemo
05. Toy Story 2
06. The Incredibles
07. Toy Story
08. Wall-E
09. Toy Story 3
10. Cars 2
11. Cars
12. A Bug's Life01-09 Are pretty much on the same level, it all depends on my mood, but they are pretty much in order….
-
4? 4? Pixar, you have been a guiding light for how the movie industry should be. Don't ruin it. Please? Well, at least whatevers after Monsters U will be original. And has it been confirmed whether MU will focus on Mike and Sully?
How do they reproduce anyway?
I was going to say the Robots way, but still. No limbs. Weird.
So I gather peoples main gripe with Bugs life is the comparatively weaker and more predictable story, and I can see that, and agree. Still, I find it well told, and the writing and characters - including a great villain in Hopper- carry it for me, as well as seeing their imaginiation when creating an "other world" for the bugs out of our leftovers. I'm a sucker for that kind of stuff.
-
Yes, Monsters University will focus on Mike and Sully. It will be about when they first met and how they came to be best friends.
-
Toy Story 4 could be about Bo: She ends up with kids who eventually forget about her. She learns about where Woody is and goes on an adventure to reunite with him. Along the way she teams up with an Emperor Zurg and something something.
…but hey it's Pixar, I have faith in them
-
Thanks to a certain someone, I now can't watch that Brave trailer without picturing the bear as a wacky sidekick character voiced by Stephen Colbert.
Complicating things since 2009.
-
looooooooool.
Well hey, they've got Craig Ferguson in the movie, why not get the rest of the late-night hosts to provide cameos? Hell, Conan O'Brien is Irish! (Yeah yeah, I know it's in Scotland . . .)
Hell, Colbert in ANY Pixar movie would be welcome news to me. Give him a lead role, he's a great actor.
-
Thanks to a certain someone, I now can't watch that Brave trailer without picturing the bear as a wacky sidekick character voiced by Stephen Colbert.
I've done my bad deed for the day.
-
hey robby, about your incredibles comment. I agree it was the family dynamic that made the movie. What if the sequal would focus on the family's problems with their new roles in society. (it's been a while since i watched the movie, but all the super heros "came out of the closet" so to speak, right?) I don't need a sequal, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
-
Toy Story 4 might not be a bad idea.
If it's true, I hope Zurg appears.
Not Andy, though. His story is done.
Although I do like trilogies. Dunno why.I don't wanna make a list. I think I might be too late.
My favorite, though, is Ratatouille. -
hey robby, about your incredibles comment. I agree it was the family dynamic that made the movie. What if the sequal would focus on the family's problems with their new roles in society. (it's been a while since i watched the movie, but all the super heros "came out of the closet" so to speak, right?) I don't need a sequal, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
Superheroes came back, but their identities were still secret.
And there's just… not a lot of ground to cover in that realm. "Superhero trying to balance a superhero life with a normal one" has been done a million times over the last 70 years in hundreds of thousands of comics. The intrigue was in "People doing their best to not be themselves or special at all, and being miserable because of it." Didn't even have to be superheroes, that theme could have carried over to other genres. It was universal.
Any and every suggestion I've heard for a sequal from fans is generally pretty trite. "They should fight the underminer!" "It should be about Dash and Violet grown up and dealing with teenager problems!" "There should be a league of supervillains!" "Jack Jack could get a super cold that changes things around him!" "It should be about the government clamping own on heroes!"
The concept for an action set piece, or a random threat is easy. The concept of a character driven arc thats universal, for 4-7 different characters, is way harder. In Ratatouille it was "Anyone can be an artist, and can strive to be one, no matter where they're from." In Wall-E it was "Love is universal". Once Brad Bird nails down the single sentence click that makes it all click, a theme that can apply to all the varied cast in different and interesting ways, I'm sure an Incredibles 2 movie will follow shortly after.
The pitch for Incredibles 2 isn't "The Parr family fights villain X!" The pitch for Incredibles 2 is "Even when you love what you do, it isn't always where you are meant to be and do" or "Love has nothing to do with looks, but everything to do with time, trust, and interest." as seen through the lens of superheroes. I don't know what exactly it would be, Brad Bird doesn't even know what it would be. It's hard.
-
i see what you mean. I always liked the real life/ super hero balance idea. That's part of the reason I like the spiderman story so much. (that and peter is just cool)
-
@RobbyBevard:
In Ratatouille it was "Anyone can be an artist, and can strive to be one, no matter where they're from."
I took it slightly different; as Ego said "not everyone can be a good X (Linguini), but a good X can come from everywhere (Remy)". Making the movie more about pattern breaking from your heritage than just trying your hardest and then you, yes you, random talentless person, can become king of the culinary world.
Me and my sister tried getting my parents to watch Wall-E the other day. It was an unmitigated disaster. We had to stop at Eves arrival, because we just couldn't take any more remarks of "when is someone going to say something?" or "when will something happen?". It illustrated a huge gap in generational movie taste to me that the part they couldn't stand was the part everyone else thinks is the best part of the movie. Even the basic storytelling was so alien to them that despite the commercials and the visual clues fitting you in on the earths situation, they had no idea what was going on or what Wall-E was doing.
I also tasted defeat with spirited away, so maybe I should just stop trying. -
Are your parents 80 years old?
-
lol back in the day, movies DIDN'T speak. You HAD to fill in the blanks from visual clues. lol
-
lol back in the day, movies DIDN'T speak. You HAD to fill in the blanks from visual clues. lol
Yeah because Silent Movies didn't have dialogue at all! And they were totally from our parents generation as opposed to the 1920's and earlier.
-
@The:
Me and my sister tried getting my parents to watch Wall-E the other day. It was an unmitigated disaster. We had to stop at Eves arrival, because we just couldn't take any more remarks of "when is someone going to say something?" or "when will something happen?". It illustrated a huge gap in generational movie taste to me that the part they couldn't stand was the part everyone else thinks is the best part of the movie. Even the basic storytelling was so alien to them that despite the commercials and the visual clues fitting you in on the earths situation, they had no idea what was going on or what Wall-E was doing.
I also tasted defeat with spirited away, so maybe I should just stop trying.@The:
Nope. But my mom is very anti-animation and my dad enoyed die another day, so in terms of movie taste, it's not much better
Jesus, that's unfortunate. (and anti-animation? That's just wrong).
I don't think it's a generation thing, though. My father is in his 70s (pre-boomer), and my mom is in her 60s (boomer), and they both LOVE Wall*E. Hell, they love every Pixar film.
-
I don't know if it's really a generational thing. My parents are also in their 70s and they'll watch animation. My dad loves Pixar movies. There's probably younger people with the same kind of mentality, that just want to see simple action/romance and they never got out of that teenaged "ew cartoons are for kids, I'm too old for that" mentality. There's also some people that took Wall-E to be beating people over the head with environmentalism. The message was there but I didn't feel like it was overbearing, like Ferngully or something.
-
My mom likes animation. She used to watch Yu-Gi-Oh! with me before school. She's in her late 40's.
My dad doesn't care, though. He's indifferent. He's in his late 30's.
My step-dad will watch anything as long as it's not raunchy or foul-mouthed. He's in his early 40's. -
I don't think there really is that much of a generation gap. Well-done cinema has been around for longer than you think (Citizen Kane anyone?). I think Daz's parents simply have the typical mentality of the general public unfortunately (no offense Daz) i.e. hates animation, hates having to think, wants something actioney to happen every effin' second and wants loud explosions every few minutes. The kind that would enjoy tripe like Avatar or a Michael Bay movie.
-
That sounds more like it. My parents are both academic book-worms, so it's no real wonder they love Pixar.
-
My parents are actually academic as well, but their extreme worlkloads might be the reason they prefer Brain:off type movies. It's not that they don't have any relation to contemporary culture - They dig books and music respectively- but when it comes to movies, well…they laughed at White Chicks.
I think the sentiment regarding Animation as "for kids" is right on the money; Shrek still goes down better than any pixar movie because cartoons are supposed to be funny right? I kept hearing from people that Up was good, but dissapointing because it wasn't funny enough. I choked up within the first ten minutes of that film, and yet the vast majority of moviegoers out there thinks animation is only about anthropomorphic animals farting.
-
@The:
My parents are actually academic as well, but their extreme worlkloads might be the reason they prefer Brain:off type movies.
Same here. Mine both read craploads of books in their offtime and use movies and television to relax, so they prefer lighter and not very deep stuff.
-
@The:
I think the sentiment regarding Animation as "for kids" is right on the money; Shrek still goes down better than any pixar movie because cartoons are supposed to be funny right? I kept hearing from people that Up was good, but dissapointing because it wasn't funny enough. I choked up within the first ten minutes of that film, and yet the vast majority of moviegoers out there thinks animation is only about anthropomorphic animals farting.
Ugh tell me about it. Unfortunately Pixar succumbs to this perception which is why they continuously ham-fist comedy into their movies. It's not like they want to but it's because they have to think about their audience. The result is that it hurts their movies. Up would have been a far stronger movie without the talking dogs on planes or the forced villain cliche with that old geezer.
-
Whaaaaaat!? How can you not love the talking dogs!?
-
Thousand Lion Chan strikes out again.
-
I kind of agree with him about the dogs flying the planes (them talking didn't bother me though.)
The only reason it bothered me though was because of how fantastic the first 10 minutes were, and how much of a tonal contrast those two seens were. But still, it's not that big of a gripe. I do find it funny when I watch the movie again. It was only that first viewing that it really annoyed me.
-
Ugh tell me about it. Unfortunately Pixar succumbs to this perception which is why they continuously ham-fist comedy into their movies. It's not like they want to but it's because they have to think about their audience. The result is that it hurts their movies. Up would have been a far stronger movie without the talking dogs on planes or the forced villain cliche with that old geezer.
Come to think of it, you really are amazingly bad at understanding characters..
I mean it was one thing with Nausicaa, which is complex, deep, and open to interpretation…
But that you apparently are completely befuddled about the important of the antagonist being that twisted bitter-over-broken-ambitions old man that Carl spends the movie evolving away from......Negima is rotting your brain.
-
The only thing I didn't really like about UP dispite being an great film with good motivations behind the mian cast, is that bird. The story of a once famous pilot explorer that vanished after chasing an urban myth was good. I even liked the fact that he remained on the island in fear that he may not have lived up to his name back at home. He had a good reason to be insane. It contrasted really well with the main guy, who looked up to this explorer as a hero and, even created a dream with childhood sweetheart/wife because it.
Now back to the bird. Dispite all this, it was a rather uninteresting character compared to the whole cast. For some reason, it was probably better off remaining as this great and untouchable mystery that no one has ever gotten close too.. because it was strange how quickly the boy managed to befriend it.
Sorry for not using any of the character's names in my light criticism of UP. It's been a while since I seen it. It's one of my favorite Pixar and modern day animated films as well.
-
Considering that Muntz was a world-famous adventurer with a massive airship filled with numerous treasures and skeletons that he has collected from any number of previously unexplored locations, it seems rather strange that his career would totally collapse in an instant the way that it did.
Had they tossed in a sequence showing a gradual decline for him or even giving him a more outlandish reason to become a laughingstock, it would have worked better. The rejected subplot about the egg providing the key to a youth potion would have fit the bill nicely as he would have been tagged as a modern day Ponce de Leon by the press of the day and would have explained why he so paranoid in the modern age (not to mention how good a shape he was in for somebody who was at least a century old), but was deemed too outlandish for a film with talking dogs piloting fighter planes.
As is, the guy had a pretty good reason to be pissed off at the world, which is probably why they implied that he was killing people since he wouldn't have seemed evil enough otherwise. Even then, it seems pretty clear that Pixar didn't have any intention of dealing with him in any fashion other than "Disney Death version 1.0."
Up is one of the greatest animated films ever made right up until they hit South America.
Complicating things since 2009.
-
As is, the guy had a pretty good reason to be pissed off at the world, which is probably why they implied that he was killing people since he wouldn't have seemed evil enough otherwise. Even then, it seems pretty clear that Pixar didn't have any intention of dealing with him in any fashion other than "Disney Death version 1.0."
Which is a shame, because I felt they could have dealt with his ending differently in some way. But if you watch the deleted scenes, they had like 8 different ways they wanted to kill him. They NEVER had anything in mind but him dying in the end,,, which is a shame. Something like finding the photo album and being re-inspired, or moving into the house or… something... might have sat better than him just turning blatant villain.
He didn't need to be EEEVIL, misunderstood or disgruntled would have been a little more subtle and might have worked better or been more gradual.
-
Whaaaaaat!? How can you not love the talking dogs!?
Doug was fine. The rest of the dogs flying on freakin' tiny planes was just plain ridiculous and way over the top completely destroying any sense of seriousness of the deep message the movie was trying to present.
Come to think of it, you really are amazingly bad at understanding characters..
I mean it was one thing with Nausicaa, which is complex, deep, and open to interpretation…
But that you apparently are completely befuddled about the important of the antagonist being that twisted bitter-over-broken-ambitions old man that Carl spends the movie evolving away from......Negima is rotting your brain.
I'm fully aware of that message, Zephos. It's not that he was a villain, it's that he was handled in such a cliche manner. Like Robby said, he didn't have to be outright evil (BWAHAHAHA) plus he died in the end instead of something more subtle and original like him realizing what he had become and trying to repent or something.
-
@RobbyBevard:
Which is a shame, because I felt they could have dealt with his ending differently in some way. But if you watch the deleted scenes, they had like 8 different ways they wanted to kill him. They NEVER had anything in mind but him dying in the end,,, which is a shame. Something like finding the photo album and being re-inspired, or moving into the house or… something... might have sat better than him just turning blatant villain.
He didn't need to be EEEVIL, misunderstood or disgruntled would have been a little more subtle and might have worked better or been more gradual.
I think they didn´t want to go again in The Ratatouille way. With how one of the "villains" turns good in the end. My favourite ending from a Pixar movie, right next to Toy Story 3 and Monster Inc.
HEROMAN… ATTACK!!
-
I think they didn´t want to go again in The Ratatouille way. With how one of the "villains" turns good in the end. My favourite ending from a Pixar movie, right next to Toy Story 3 and Monster Inc.
The food critic wasn't exactly a villain.
And a story doesn't have to have a villain to move along, forcing one in to it a typical structure isn't always the way go. Finding Nemo didn't have any villains, for instance.
-
Yeah, Anton Ego isn't a "villain", he's more a "challenge." A hill to for Remy to overcome in his quest to become a respected chef.
That, and he gets the best speech in the movie:
My 3DS FC: 0361 - 7494 - 3910
