VistraNorrez
Member
Considering there is no public announcement, and that Pixar has retooled quite a few of their films deep into production, I wouldn't pay much attention to this.
WTF? The Snow Queen and King of the Elves could have been really interesting (if they are the films I'm thinking of). It isn't like Disney has loads of interesting new films in the pipeline...Captain N said:http://progresscityusa.com/2010/02/10/and-the-hits-keep-on-comin/
A Disney animator said "Newt is Dead".
Disney has been canceling movies left and right.
the Snow Queen
King of the Elves
now Newt?![]()
DiatribeEQ said:So....wait. Let me get this straight:
Disney is canceling a Pixar movie.....because of what? They being tired of being continually upstaged by the Pixar crew, when it comes to kids movies? Or do they think that "Sequels = Cash, so let's make nothing but that....."
On that note, honestly guys...while I love Pixar movies, I would like to see NEW stuff more than a 2nd or 3rd movie from an established franchise. Toy Story 3? Loved the first 2. But I care more for something like Newt, because it's.......you know.....new. Cars 2? Sure, go ahead with it. But do it after....you know......Newt.
But I guess it's a moot point, when your corporate overlords crack the whips; pull your strings & bark their orders, eh, Pixar?
That's the general consensus on the matter. When their slate was announced, newt and Bear & Bow were bookended by Toy Story 3 and Cars 2.Captain N said:I have a feeling he wants to do movies like Cars 2 in order to make enough money to support movies like snow queen.
I'll tell my roommate he is working on a fantasyAnticitizen One said:and I know personally that they are both cancelled...
What does that have to do with anything? The way Pixar is set up, they work on 3-4 movies at a time.red shoe paul said:Aw noooo, I really was looking forward for it! I wonder why..
Toy Story 3 maybe?
what.the.fuck.Anticitizen One said:Actually the news is even worse. Entangled is just one of the names being considered. The others are "The Bandit in the tower" and "Unbraided". I WISH I was making this up. Why they can't just call it Rapunzel is beyond me. This is going to sink the film.
WordAssassin said:What does that have to do with anything? The way Pixar is set up, they work on 3-4 movies at a time.
Like I said, as of November 2009, I stood outside the building they're working on newt in. I have a picture of it somewhere, I'll try to find it.
Hell, they're even building an entirely new, 4-story building on Pixar's campus to accommodate a larger work load for making more movies each year. (They want to start making 2 a year, reportedly.)
Edit: You edited while I was writing, but it doesn't change much. And Cars 2 comes out a year ahead of newt. Still no problems there.
Is it next year? Oh snap!Captain N said:Disney was working on a movie called Space Chimps at one point! nuts.
I think next year is when they start with two Pixar movies a year. It's nuts to think we'll be getting 2 a year from now on. We'll probably get one in june and that movie will get a dvd / blu-ray release around the time of the fall release. The fall release will get a dvd / blu-ray release around March.
Anticitizen One said:Actually the news is even worse. Entangled is just one of the names being considered. The others are "The Bandit in the tower" and "Unbraided". I WISH I was making this up. Why they can't just call it Rapunzel is beyond me. This is going to sink the film.
wait, what? Really?Littleberu said:We knew absolutely nothing about Newt. If it's cancelled, it's probably for the better.
Up was released last year, and the year before it was Wall-E. Then we get Toy Story 3 and Cars 2, followed by the Bear and the Bow. Newt was supposed to follow.
It's hardly a sequel factory. Keep in mind, Monsters Inc 2 IS in development, but it's not in production. Many movies are currently in development, most likely.
jamesinclair said:Honestly, I have to agree with them.
Why did Princess and the Frog do badly?
-2D?
-Black lead?
-Princess?
I don't think anybody knows for sure. Disney probably did a shitload of consumer surveys but they'll never release the data to us.
I think it was all three reasons. Young boys don't want to see a princess movie, kids see the commercials and are more attracted to 3D chipmunks and the race thing is in the back of the mind.
Those were all before Disney animated movies went to hell though. '90's Disney rocked. Just because The Princess and the Frog was supposed to be the big return doesn't mean people actually were willing to give it a chance.Anticitizen One said:Thats BS. When I was little me and everyone at school (girls and boys) saw Little Mermaid, Beauty & The Beast, and Aladdin. All of those are princess movies and we liked them all just fine. Everyone still loves the 1930s classic Snow White.
Anticitizen One said:Thats BS. When I was little me and everyone at school (girls and boys) saw Little Mermaid, Beauty & The Beast, and Aladdin. All of those are princess movies and we liked them all just fine. Everyone still loves the 1930s classic Snow White.
There's been a lot of evidence pointing to Monsters, Inc. 2 being in the works, but it's hardly confirmed. We know Peter Docter isn't directing it, he confirmed that much. I've been assuming Bob Peterson (voice of Roz, Monsters, Inc. story supervisor and Up co-director) is heading it up. We know he shifted off Up to work on his own feature and he was heavily involved in the original and a trusted partner of Pete Docter's. Makes sense to me.allegate said:wait, what? Really?
Current word is it's been canned again... whether that's true or not, I don't know.WordAssassin said:Uh, the Snow Queen was canceled a long time ago, and was actually recently just brought back to life. It's Disney's next traditionally animated film after Winnie the Pooh.
The report was that Iger said Cars 2 was a December 2011 release, not summer 2012. I can't say I've seen denials of that, but I haven't been very in touch with the news the last couple weeks.WordAssassin said:I don't remember, I follow like 8-10 of them. It was the Disney conference call that started it, because someone misquoted them saying "Cars 2 Summer 2012" instead of June 2011. So everyone freaked out, and Twitter lit up with damage control.
Well, it was going to be Cars 2 and The Bear and the Bow in 2011. I don't think they were immediately going to two films a year however; the plan was for three films every two years.WordAssassin said:Is it next year? Oh snap!
:lolavatar299 said:I'll tell my roommate he is working on a fantasy
That was attributed to Warner Bros in late 2007.jamesinclair said:Didn't some studio say a few years ago that they would no longer produce movies with a female lead? Marvel I think?
Hope your right, these movies sound interesting.avatar299 said:I'll tell my roommate he is working on a fantasy
Someone on Gaf told me that the merchandise for Cars reached somewhere near $5 billion. That's a crap load of cash right there. You're not the only one who feels Cars was average. It wasn't a terrible film by any means, just mediocre/average compared to some of Pixar's other films. If making the sequel will help Pixar fund some of their more quirky/unique films, so be it.bluebird said:It's really sad that the only reason Cars 2 exists is for Pixar make a lot of money, even if that will allow them to fund new project. But really, Cars 2? The first one was terribly slow and there was nothing amazingly interesting about it. Maybe that was just me.
Jangaroo said:Someone on Gaf told me that the merchandise for Cars reached somewhere near $5 billion. That's a crap load of cash right there. You're not the only one who feels Cars was average. It wasn't a terrible film by any means, just mediocre/average compared to some of Pixar's other films. If making the sequel will help Pixar fund some of their more quirky/unique films, so be it.
Cars was a good movie, just not as good as Pixar's other films. But have you seen the Cars Toons they've made? (Short films based in the Cars world, as told by Mater) They are excellent and if the new movie, which takes place out of Radiator Springs and instead is all over the world, is anything like those shorts then I think it'll blow the first movie away.bluebird said:It's really sad that the only reason Cars 2 exists is for Pixar make a lot of money, even if that will allow them to fund new project. But really, Cars 2? The first one was terribly slow and there was nothing amazingly interesting about it. Maybe that was just me.
Those are the ones where Mater is telling stories and he's all like, "You were there!" right?WordAssassin said:But have you seen the Cars Toons they've made? (Short films based in the Cars world, as told by Mater) They are excellent and if the new movie, which takes place out of Radiator Springs and instead is all over the world, is anything like those shorts then I think it'll blow the first movie away.
GhaleonQ said:Who's ready for a return to cut-rate 1970's Disney and Cars 3, 4, and 5?
Stumpokapow said:70s Disney had Robin Hood and Winnie the Pooh, both solid flicks. The Adventurers wasn't awful but obviously it's a little lower tier. Aristocats I'd say is somewhere near the middle of Disney's output.
2000s Disney, on the other hand, is pretty barren. Emperor's New Groove and Lilo & Stitch are both pretty good, and then you have an ocean of shit: Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Home on the Range, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, Bolt. Princess and the Frog is something of a return to form, but it's more a return to mediocre Disney than it is a return to top shelf stuff.
bluebird said:But really, Cars 2? The first one was terribly slow and there was nothing amazingly interesting about it. Maybe that was just me.
GhaleonQ said:I think Pixar's a mediocre animation studio, even compared to other commercial studios, but this isn't good news for anyone.
Stumpokapow said:70s Disney had Robin Hood and Winnie the Pooh, both solid flicks. The Adventurers wasn't awful but obviously it's a little lower tier. Aristocats I'd say is somewhere near the middle of Disney's output.
2000s Disney, on the other hand, is pretty barren. Emperor's New Groove and Lilo & Stitch are both pretty good, and then you have an ocean of shit: Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Home on the Range, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, Bolt. Princess and the Frog is something of a return to form, but it's more a return to mediocre Disney than it is a return to top shelf stuff.
Robin hood and pooh exceled in appealing character design, voice acting, and story. Doesn't matter that pooh has reused shots and the princess had "competent Eric Goldberg faces".GhaleonQ said:Obviously, anything of quality can come from any budget. The animation, however, was extremely rough in the 1970's. It worked in Robin Hood because of the complex setpieces, but Winnie-The-Pooh and the rest are so elementary and have no complex shots whatsoever. Reused shots, warped figures, and odd pacing are embarrassing. At least The Princess And The Frog had competent Eric Goldberg faces.
(Also, while the quality and animation of Treasure Planet's debatable [I love it and think Musker and Clements nail every other movie], Meet The Robinsons' design and animation are objectively the best since the early 1990's. It's also 1 of the few funny Disney movies.)
Willy105 said:Whoa! Hey now. Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Meet the Robinsons, and Bolt are fantastic movies. Since when do they suck?
Willy105 said:Whoa! Hey now. Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Meet the Robinsons, and Bolt are fantastic movies. Since when do they suck?
Treasure Planet is awesome, it was my first avatar here:Littleberu said:Treasure Planet and Brother Bear aren't "awesome". They are subpar animated movies made by Disney. Meet the Robinsons has a few gags worth a laugh in it, and is pretty interesting, but it's not "fantastic". Bolt is on the right track, charming, simple, light and technically impressive sometimes.
GhaleonQ said:Also, John Lasseter ruined Bolt.