Yes, kids, there will be a Toy Story 4 - Page 2

In their "independent" days most of their films were original ideas. Now that they have been fully integrated into the Disney machine, I think the ratio of original films to sequels is going to fall. Yeah, they care about money, but they didn't care about it to the same level that the Disney conglomerate does. They were willing to take some chances with their films. As part of Disney, I think that exploratory phase is going to go away. They are going to become just another studio looking for the next "franchise" or looking to create one from their existing properties. CARS 2 is a good example of what you can start expecting more of from Pixar under Disney. It wasn't a bad film but it was probably their first wholly unoriginal film that used a derivative plot line. Under the old Pixar I wonder if that particular story line for CARS 2 would have ever made it off the storyboard?

So, what did you think of Sucker Punch?

re: The idea that Pixar is now "part of the Disney Machine" and will go chasing franchises, remember that when Disney took over Pixar, they made John Lasseter Chief Creative Officer of *all* of Disney Animation. I don't think they were too interested in losing Pixar's creative spark. Note clever recent Disney films like The Princess and the Frog and Tangled (IMO the former is up there with the all-time Disney classics).

I definitely think the studio's upcoming fare looks much more promising than it did 10 years ago; I have high hopes for the new Winnie the Pooh. I think 2D might still have a chance if that does well.

Well, you could fool me. Neither the Princess and The Frog or Tangled were particularly creative. They were just more of the same Disney "Princess" formula and Cars 2, while good, is probably the least creative or original story that Pixar has produced to date. AFAIAC, Lasseter being made COO of Disney animation says nothing, because once you reach that level a whole new set of priorities becomes paramount over making good films. What becomes important is satisfying the demands of shareholders for steadily increasing dividends. You don't get that by taking chances with original stories. The fact that they are making a "new" Winnie The Pooh movie says volumes about Lasseter's committment to creativity. Maybe re-hashing Winnie the Pooh is creative to some, but it isn't to me.

Lasseter is the pile and Disney is the pile driver. If Lasseter has any spark of creative commitment left in him, the Disney corporate bureaucracy will eventually drive it out of him.

I love the internet because it makes me feel like I'm an optimist.

Just the fact that they dumped "Darby" in favor of Christopher Robin bodes well for this.

I totally disagree about The Princess and the Frog. OK, maybe it's not Up original, but it's far from uncreative.

TS3 was a perfect ending but I wouldn't mind if seeing TS4 IF it was done as well as the first 3. Personally I doubt if it will happen though. TS trilogy and LOTR have to be the best made trilogies ever.

I'm sorry for looking like the thorn here,but isn't that what endings are supposed to be ?

endings.Closure.

I'm in the camp who believes there will always be more ideas.Other ideas.

If you listen to the Nicholas Meyer commentary on Star trek 2:Wrath of Khan,he fought long and hard to have a finality to
Spock's death,but ultimately lost that fight as we all know,so much that someone else shot that scene of Spock's coffin on
the lush paradise of Genesis because he simply refused to shoot it himself.

In this life we have to accept death as the great equalizer,and when i see that concept in films,it makes me feel a little more connected to them.
But if as i'm drying my eyes from crying and someones says " Fooled ya ! " well it pisses me off.

If you go thru all this trouble to set up a great awesome film or a terrific ending,don't tell me right after i was emotionally invested for nothing.

I also have a problem regarding the ending of The iron giant by Brad bird.

again,trilogy means 3.The end.

You might have lost me for a bit. When you refer to "Darby" are you saying that they were planning a remake of "Darby O'Gill and the Little People"? Ugh! The first one was bad enough. A remake would have been worse than Winnie the Pooh, so maybe he still does have some creative control.


I'm not quite sure how this relates to TS3 since nobody actually died in the film.

Edwin-S ,
Now that i'm re-reading myself from having written this at 3 am, i can see your point.

Films should end with a trilogy if they put it out that way for us.

Andy gave up his toys,he moved on to other things and he was able to pass the torch to a kid who's gonna take care and love the toys.

It all set up like that,so we get emotional about all this.The entire TS3 leads up to this inevitable conclusion.

It's like Pixar saying This is it folks.We're done here.It ends right here,right now with this scene between Andy and the girl receiving the toys.
No more Toy story,no more Woody or Buzz.

This is a conclusion.

People all over the net are literally crying,sobbing or tearing up on that last scene.

http://youtu.be/grSg8cd8v-Q

If you read the first comment there,someone noticed that the cloud at the end ressembles the first cloud of Andy's wallpaper from the first
shot of Toy story 1.I don't know about you,but that feels like an attempt at full circle right there.

then,soon enough,an announcement of Toy story 4.

My genuine emotions are feeling confused upset and cheated right now.

How about you guys and gals ?

I am not aware that Pixar/Disney has ever marketed the Toy Story movies as a trilogy.

 

I believe the "trilogy" moniker has been attached--not incorrectly--by fans...as there have been three movies made in the Toy Story series.  I don't think, however, that Pixar ever set out with the intention of making a Toy Story trilogy.  After all, the story of TS2 originally conceived as a direct-to-video project have been well-reported.  And look at the amount of time that lapsed between TS2 and the creation of TS3.

 

You only need to click the link "Letting Go"  in my signature to know how emotionally vested I am in the TS series. 

 

Pixar will do whatever they please.  So far, I have been happy with their treatment of the series.

 

While I don't think that some throwaway comments from Tom Hanks when asked about the possibility of a TS4 is much of an indicator, I have no reason to believe that Pixar wouldn't continue their run of excellence if they decided to continue the series. 

 

 

 

I didn't see it that way at all.  I saw the ending of TS3 as a new beginning for the toys as they were now set to embark an an entirely new adventure.  This was Andy's "gift" to them after all the years they gave him.

 

  The "circle of life", if you will, in the life-cycle of toys.  A terrific way to end the series...or an equally-as-terrific springboard for a new set of adventures.  Time will tell...and I'll be in the audience if they decide to continue (maybe this time sitting with some grandchildren!).  

I can understand your point of view however..

For me,Andy was a major part of the three films,it was always the drive that pushed Woody.

How many times was Andy mentioned in all three films ?

I believe if someone watches all 3 films together,there is no way that doesnt feel like a satisfying whole series.

I' d really have a hard time seeing a continuation of this after that TS 3 ending.

Like everybody says,we'll wait and see if Pixar is running out of original ideas or if they start making a bunch of Cars 2.

Brave seems to go on a different path .

I can understand they would go either way seeing how their track record has been virtually spotless so far.

To be honest, when you reach a certain point these days, sequels are going to happen.  You have a large amount of IP which you can leverage that people will want to come see.  Even before Disney, Pixar was a public company and it would be easier to go to shareholders and say that sequel X is in the pipeline, because people know it will do business.

 

As for Cars 2, I really enjoyed it and in some ways enjoyed it better than the first film.

 

As for the subject, I think moviewise they've done about as much as they can.  Course, I kinda felt that way after 2, but they managed to write a compelling story for a sequel and it was good.  Personally, tho, I would be fine to have a series of shorts like the one before Cars 2.

 

Just found this 25-min video on a day in the life of John Lasseter

I find all this carping about the lack of originality from Pixar humorous. There isn't another studio with their track record. Every film they've released is a pleasure to watch and rewatch. Some are better than others, but they have maintained a high level of creativity and quality, IMHO.

I do worry that Lassiter could be spreading himself too thin by being head of all animation, but I'll wait to sound the alarm that the sky is falling.

After watching the extras on Cars, it's clear to me why there have been two Cars films. Lassiter is nuts about cars. Well, gee, a filmmaker making a film about his passion. Sounds like a good idea to me.

I will say that we took the kids to see Winnie the Pooh this weekend, and the hand-drawn animation in that film is among the most lush and crisp I have ever seen. Really a tribute to the old art form.

There are trilogies, and there are trilogies. A story has a beginning, middle, and end -- some trilogies are set up that way, each film covering one of those aspects of a single story arc, with mini-endings along the way (LotR, for example, or the original Star Wars trilogy). Others are called trilogies simply because there are three of them. They're different stories about existing characters rather than three parts of a single story arc. There's no reason why there couldn't be more than three. The Toy Story movies fit the latter category, IMO. See also Star Trek, James Bond, Transformers, Mission: Impossible, etc.

There's a Disney Channel show for young children called "My Friends Tigger and Pooh" where the characters solve little mysteries. In it, they replaced Christopher Robin with a generic girl named Darby. It feels like some marketing committee decided that the Playhouse Disney (now called Disney Junior) programming block needed another female character.