• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Disney•Pixar Newt canceled?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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? :(
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...

As for Newt...since it is a pixar film, isn't it money in the bag?
 
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?

You do know John Lasseter is in charge of both Pixar and Disney animation, right? There's no Disney v. Pixar thing going on.
 
Did anyone see the art from the canceled movie a few good ghosts?

afewgoodghosts1.jpg

afewgoodghosts2.jpg

afewgoodghosts3.jpg

afewgoodghosts4.jpg
 
Whatever they do make is gonna be dope. If they wanna devote more time to making the films they are going to release even doper, so be it.
 
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.
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.

Here's what I think is going on. People started freaking out with the Cars 2 release date mixup. newt is fine, until someone from Disney or Pixar officially says otherwise. Snow Queen and Elves were never officially announced for release, but newt was AND was given a release date. I think Queen and Elves have been put on the back burner again, so to speak, but they are not canned. Fraidy Cat, Moby Dick, THOSE movies are canned.

Perhaps Queen and Elves were put on hold while they try to think up something with a little more mass-market appeal to get people back into 2D? I'm *sure* Pooh will be fine. They've apparently even shown WIP clips of it.

But I refuse to believe Pixar would can a film until I hear it from them. They don't just kill off a movie because it's not working, they work on it more until it's fixed. They did that with Toy Story 2, Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, and Wall-E, and Lasseter has done the same with three other movies at Disney. I can not believe they would start now with newt.
 
red shoe paul said:
Aw noooo, I really was looking forward for it! I wonder why..
Toy Story 3 maybe?
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.
 
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.
what.the.fuck.

Doesn't make any sense, but then, I'm one of the crazy people that loved Princess and the Frog, so I guess I'm definitely not part of the demographic Disney is targeting with this change.
 
Disney was working on a movie called Space Chimps at one point! nuts.

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.

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.
 
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.
Is it next year? Oh snap!
 
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.


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.
 
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.
wait, what? Really?
 
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.

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.
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.

None of those movies have the word "Princess" in their title

BTW, US box office (in millions) of disney movies 89-99

Lion King: 329
Aladdin: 217
Tarzan: 171
Beauty and Beast: 145
Pocahontas: 141
Mulan: 120
Hunchback: 100
Hercules: 99
Little Mermaid: 84

Do you also note the correlation between the sex of the lead and the performance?

Didn't some studio say a few years ago that they would no longer produce movies with a female lead? Marvel I think?


Female lead + black lead + PRINCESS = not so hot box office.

I think if you interview people, and ask why they didn't see it, I don't think a single one of them will say "because it's a black girl" or anything like that. But unfortunately, behind the scenes, I think that may be the case.

Im sure someone has done a regression model with 500 data points proving the correlation or not. I'd like to see it.

Also, this is just Disney. If we start adding pixar and dreamworks... Not a single pixar movie has a female lead, and their revenue blows away the above list. In fact, their movies are very strongly aimed at the traditional male segment......cars, super heroes, robots...
 
allegate said:
wait, what? Really?
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.

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.
Current word is it's been canned again... whether that's true or not, I don't know.

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.
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:
Is it next year? Oh snap!
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.
 
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?
That was attributed to Warner Bros in late 2007.
 
People are saying the princess & the frog "flopped", but according tot wikipedia it did $210,951,400 worldwide (and it's still running in my country), while it needed to make $105 million to break even..
Add to this the DVD & Bluray release and licensing which are always doing very well for disney movies, and I can't image this not being profitable.
 
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.

Toy Story 3 is acceptable simply because it's Toy Story, but I really hope they stop it there. Also, Monsters Inc 2. Anything else needs to die.
 
so it's still wait and see. If it is cancelled though, then I guess there would be good reasons. The concept sounds good, but as other have said, it is a lot like The Princess and the Frog in some respects. The problem i have would be suddenly seeing so many sequels with only The Bear and the bow in between.

As for The Princess and the Frog, I guess they would have expected to at least match Enchanted. The marketing, the schedule and the name might have been a problem but the film itself was great so hopefully they'll stick with it. At least the merchandising has apparently done great, so maybe that will make them happy.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

All you have to do is go to Disneyland. Cars Merch is so damn popular. That's why they are building a Cars Land in DCA.
 
Still don't believe newt is canned.
IMG_0004.jpg

Took this in November '09 outside of "Jersey", Pixar's satellite studio.

But, in reguards to Cars 2:
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.
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.
 
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.
Those are the ones where Mater is telling stories and he's all like, "You were there!" right?
If those are the ones you are referring to, yes. They are good!
 
GhaleonQ said:
Who's ready for a return to cut-rate 1970's Disney and Cars 3, 4, and 5?

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.
 
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.

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.)
 
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.

It's just you. But I agree that Cars was not the most obvious choice for a sequel.

GhaleonQ said:
I think Pixar's a mediocre animation studio, even compared to other commercial studios, but this isn't good news for anyone.

1189168-coffeeshot.jpg


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.

Whoa! Hey now. Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Meet the Robinsons, and Bolt are fantastic movies. Since when do they suck?
 
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.)
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".
 
Willy105 said:
Whoa! Hey now. Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Meet the Robinsons, and Bolt are fantastic movies. Since when do they suck?

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.
 
Willy105 said:
Whoa! Hey now. Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Meet the Robinsons, and Bolt are fantastic movies. Since when do they suck?

All of the hand-animated Disney films of the late 1990s to the early 2000s contain some really awful Cal Arts designs, conspicuous, Don Bluth-like acting, and low-budget sequences inserted between high-quality setpieces. Also, John Lasseter ruined Bolt.
 
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.
Treasure Planet is awesome, it was my first avatar here:
212sp4w.jpg

And Bolt was good, but it could have been amazing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom