What's new

TOY STORY 3 (merged thread) (1 Viewer)

Kachi Khatri

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
454
Real Name
Jay
Update....from Sci-Fi..

Toy Story Sequels Coming...


Michael Eisner announced that Disney is moving forward on a third and fourth film in the Toy Story series without the involvement of former animation partner Pixar, New York Newsday reported. "We're doing two Toy Stories at once," Eisner said during a Goldman Sachs investment conference in New York on Oct. 5. A spokeswoman for the company confirmed that there are two story ideas being developed.

Toy Story was the first feature collaboration between Disney and Pixar and became a box-office hit in 1995. Toy Story 2, originally planed as a direct-to-video project, achieved similar success in 1999. Though Disney's partnership with Pixar dissolved last year, the studio retains the rights to make sequels to the films on its own. At the conference, Eisner outlined the studio's plans for additional computer-animated films, including Chicken Little, which he said will cost half as much as competitors spend on such films, the newspaper reported.
 

Holadem

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2000
Messages
8,967
I LOVE TS, I have to give it a chance, albeit with low expectations. I am in.

--
H
 

Ricardo C

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
5,068
Real Name
Ricardo C
Well, I love Queen, but the band doesn't really exist without Freddie Mercury.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
28,670
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
:frowning: This could be most unfortunate. Toy Story was excellent. Toy Story 2 was even better. I was hoping Pixar would eventually create a Toy Story 3, but only when they had a story to exceed the first two.

Disney's stories have been inconsistent of late, and I'm concerned they will create a mediocre sequel rather than the magnificant movie that should be made.
 

RyanAn

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
1,523
At least it will be theatrical and not direct to video. I could imagine them trying to go along the lines of Buzz Lightyear: Star Command with more traditional animation of sorts.

Ryan
 

Keith Paynter

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 16, 1999
Messages
1,837
You mean like The Jungle Book 2 and Return To Neverland? Those were certainly advancing the art of animation and storytelling.
 

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
Actually I wish it were just direct to video. Without Pixar this is going to simply suck, and it really is an Eisner fiasco to try to pretend that it's going to be good enough to get a theatrical release. Disgusting.
 

RyanAn

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
1,523


Where you being sarcastic or just rude? Funny you should bring up the art, because in Return to Neverland, it was one of the first traditional and 3D animated films... It was also the first Disney sequel to go to theatres. And it was a nice telling of the story. Try not to be so insulting, thanks.

Ryan
 

MatthewLouwrens

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2003
Messages
3,034
What about The Rescuers Down Under? (I'll assume we can't call Fantasia 2000 a sequel.)

And I think he was being insulting because, in the view of many viewers with a love for Disney, the films themselves are an insult to Disney's history.
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
Technically, the war-time goodwill feature The Three Caballeros is the first theatrically-released Disney feature that was a sequel to another previous film (in this case, the triple-Oscar nominee, Saludos Amigos). It is the only Disney animated feature to sport characters recurring from a previous film. Disney *absolutely refused* to make sequels to his animated features, the goodwill wartime films were a special exception.

It can be surmised that Fantasia, Make Mine Music, and Melody Time form a sort of "music trilogy" -- but these are variations on a theme, not sequels.

Disney, as a rule, was impatient with sequels because he saw animation as an art form that had to grow and learn each time out -- sequels are redundant in this regard. Also, he felt a need to keep surprsing his audience with something new. "You can't top pigs with pigs." he famously said when demands poured in for a sequel to The Three Little Pigs. He went ahead and made three "Pigs" sequels, and none of them had much impact, though they were certainly well-made. Walt was not surprised they failed to make a splash. He would repeat the phrase "You can't top pigs with pigs" for the rest of his life.

Later in his career, he relented on a few occasions and made sequels to live-action fare -- he made a two-part sequel to the wildly-popular Davy Crockett TV episodes, and the project performed well below the original. He also made a sequel to Old Yeller called Savage Sam, which did not perform well and is mostly forgotten today. Likewise, he made a sequel to the smash hit, The Absent Minded Professor. Called Son of Flubber, it was only a modest success.

"Funny you should bring up the art, because in Return to Neverland, it was one of the first traditional and 3D animated films."

The first Disney feature to sport a marriage of Computer Generate Imagery and traditional animation was The Black Cauldron in 1985 (many people - including the people who write Disney Press Releases and promotional items - get this wrong and claim The Great Mouse Detective was the first). In Cauldron, Princess Eilonwy's magic bauble, as well as a boat, a gate, and other incidental f/x were created via computer. All Disney animated features since 1985 have incorporated CGI and hand-drawn animation, without exception. The only ground broken by Peter Pan 2 was the fact that it was the first cheapquel to gain theatrical release.

"It was also the first Disney sequel to go to theatres. And it was a nice telling of the story."

Personally, I wouldn't be caught dead buying, renting, or even watching a cheapquel to a Walt Disney film. It is morally repulsive to me -- like the colorization of Casablanca. Eisner can make as many cheapquels to his modern films as he wants -- but when he starts strip-mining Walt's films, that truly rubs me the wrong way. The only exception I make is Fantasia/2000, because Walt wanted to continue the Fantasia experiment but couldn't, and it was a painful failure for him that affected the rest of his life.

What Eisner is doing right now with Toy Story is no different in a moral sense than Eisner making their DTV cheapquels to Walt's films (how revealing that Eisner says he can make the Toy Story sequels at half the cost -- that miserly approach is the same philosophy seen on the direct-to-video garbage, and a trained eye can spot the penny-pinching just from the trailers alone).

Eisner has the legal right to make his cheapquels since the Disney Company owns the properties, but I would argue that he has no moral right to make low budget cheapquels to the films of others without their implicit approval. Sort of like that book "Scarlett: the Sequel to Gone With the Wind" that was commissioned by the estate of Margaret Mitchell. It was a money grab, nothing more.

The DTV cheapquels are money grabs, they stand on the shoulders of giants, and they use the name and legend of these landmarks in film history for no other purpose than to exploit their name recognition and bring in revenues. They are made on the cheap so the films will be as profitable as possible. That's as true for Peter Pan 2 and Cinderella 2 as it will be for Toy Story 4 and, sadly, the coming abomination known as Bambi 2.
 

Pete-D

Screenwriter
Joined
May 30, 2000
Messages
1,746
I think Disney will chug gas for the next few years, but they'll rebound provided there's a new creative atmosphere brought to the company after Eisner leaves.

I think right now, Disney is in a similar rut to where they were in the late 70s/early 80s.

Toy Story 3 and 4 (and maybe if we're lucky Toy Story 4 1/2) ... urgh. I dunno.

I've had a blast going back and rewatching Aladdin and The Lion King on DVD this week though. It just really does seem that after Katzenberg left, things went downhill.

What is Disney doing now beyond these films btw? I haven't been keeping up to date, I'm assuming everything else from here on out is CGI right?

Are they still planning to go ahead and remake movies like Peter Pan and Cinderella in CGI?
 

Keith Paynter

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 16, 1999
Messages
1,837

Neither, but if you must, sarcastic.

The only reason TS2 went theatrical was because there was a good story there. It was originally intended for straight-to-video. Were those other Disney sequels I spoke of really good enough to merit theatrical exhibition, or should they have been strictly S2V?
 

DeathStar1

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2001
Messages
3,267
Real Name
Neil
>>Eisner has the legal right to make his cheapquels since the Disney Company owns the properties, but I would argue that he has no moral right to make low budget cheapquels to the films of others without their implicit approval. Sort of like that book "Scarlett: the Sequel to Gone With the Wind" that was commissioned by the estate of Margaret Mitchell. It was a money grab, nothing more.
>>

Maby Pixar will be equally repulsive at these cheapquals and try to buy their characters back so they can do it right. That deal with Disney was a Deal with the Devil. IIRC, Pixar creates and animated the characters, doing all the work, and all Disney has to do is take the credit.
 

Jason Seaver

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
9,303
Um, that's how Hollywood works - you get the studio to spend tens of millions of dollars to produce your movie, and they own it. It's a very rare filmmaker who manages to keep/regain ownership of their creations (Spielberg, Lucas, Chaplin, Disney and Coppolla are the only ones who leap to mind).

That said, I remember Lasseter and company being very careful to stress when Toy Story was released that Disney's participation was important in terms of learning how to develop and produce an animated feature.
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
"That said, I remember Lasseter and company being very careful to stress when Toy Story was released that Disney's participation was important in terms of learning how to develop and produce an animated feature."

John Lasseter cut his teeth working for Disney, his first experiences with CGI were at Disney, including a mix of CGI and hand-drawn animation based on Where the Wild Things Are. Brad Bird, director of Pixar's The Incredibles, was a former assistant of legendary Disney animator Milt Kahl.

The difference between Pixar and Disney these days is that Pixar knows the importance of solid writing and a great story with heart. Eisner's Disney allows terciary concerns like toy contracts and focus groups to pollute the creative process, and the result are movies with wild shifts in tone, taste, and intelligence. The defining characteristic of the modern Disney animated film is artistic compromise between the excellent work of the animation team and the priorities of the corporate apparatus. Out of such compromise, films like Dinosaur are born.
 

Win Joy Jr

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Apr 12, 2002
Messages
200
Guys - Before anyone melts down even farther...

This just may be an attempt to get Pixar back into talks. Disney is in trouble, and EVERYONE knows that from the analysts on down. Disney needs Pixar much more that Pixar needs Disney. Threatening to totally move a franchise away from Pixar is a way to see exactly how resolved Pixar is. Is Pixar willing to walk away while Disney screws with the Franchise? My bet is no. Eisner is on the way out. The Pixar deal is a failing that cannot be spun any other way. The only way for Eisner to go out on top is to rescue the Pixar deal.

Ownership rights is the sticking point. IF Pixar can accept joint custody, er, ownership, then a deal can be struck. Disney has a lot at stake around Toy Story, and it would be crazy to surrender those rights. There are several attractions based upon the Pixar product such as "Buzz Lightyear's Ranger Spin" at the Magic kingdomm, the "Finding Nemo" overlay at EPCOT's Living Seas pavilion and "It's Tough to be a Bug" at Disney's Animal Kingdom. Disney would be foolish to place itself in a position to have to pay royalities for the established attractions.
 

MatthewLouwrens

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2003
Messages
3,034
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I thought Disney owned Toy Story, and indeed all Pixar product up to Cars (I think?). They don't have to pay Pixar royalties for the attractions.

Now, it may very well be an attempt to try and bring Pixar back in - or just as easily a recognition that "We own this, lets make more" - see Peter Pan 2, Jungle Books 2, and every crappy DTV sequel released in the last 10 years.
 

Casey Trowbridg

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
9,209
Its a shame to me that Disney is going to make not 1 but 2 cheapquels to the Toy Story 1 and 2 movies.

Part of the reason this is a shame to me is because of something I read over at JimHillMedia.com talking about an idea that some over at Pixar had for a Toy Story 3. It would've been a great way to end the series, and was definitely a logical story to be told.

That's not what saddens me though. It saddens me, that even if Disney came to the same conclusion and had the same outline for a story that was outlined in the article I read...it still wouldn't be as good as if Pixar were in control, largely for the reasons that Ernest has mentioned. You focus group a movie to death, you look out for lesser concerns like making good toys, and all of these other things and you can turn a good idea in to a bad ovie in a short amount of time.

I know Mikey has talked about remaking some of the Disney classics in CGI...and lord how I hope that this never happens. I have 0 interest in a CGI Snow White...especially knowing the way Disney has done things lately, a CGI Snow White done on the cheap. The same feeling applies to any other Disney classic...no CGI Bambi, Sleeping Beauty, etc etc. This would be more than I could take, september 2006 can't come soon enough for me.
 

Pete-D

Screenwriter
Joined
May 30, 2000
Messages
1,746
How would a CGI Cindellera or Snow White work though?

Would they just update each film frame by frame, using CGI instead?

Or would they "contemporize" the stories and load up the humor with pop culture references and what not?

Did Eisner ever outline a plan or did he just throw out the idea?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,710
Messages
5,121,134
Members
144,146
Latest member
SaladinNagasawa
Recent bookmarks
0
Top