Disney is going ahead with TOY STORY 3.

[Jemstone]

Shrek was good, not as good as people make it out to be, but why are we talking about CG movies other companies made? We're talking about Disney. Disney has been getting worse and worse in the storytelling department over the years, and not just with their crappy direct to video movies. Aside from Lilo&Stitch and the Emperor's New Groove their big budget theatrical releases have been absolute trainwrecks. Hercules was painful, Pocahontas was wretched, Atlantis lowered the bar even further, and Treasure Planet was quite possibly the worst trash Disney has levelled against the movie going public. Then they have the audacity to blame you and me. Each and every one of us. We're the reason their movies have been bombing in the theatres. Why? Because we apparently hate 2D animation.

Radd, are you sure you've never worked for Disney? You sound EXACTLY like all the faculty which are ex Disney employees.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Old hat but just in case anyone wants it. (Also I was incorrect with my numbers earlier... the average CGI movie profit is waaaaaay higher than I remembered... also keep in mind this study is old and does not include the recent crop of films).

[JB0]

Old hat but just in case anyone wants it. (Also I was incorrect with my numbers earlier... the average CGI movie profit is waaaaaay higher than I remembered... also keep in mind this study is old and does not include the recent crop of films).

*cries*

I liked Titan AE.

[JsARCLIGHT]

And I liked Iron Giant... the point is that when you look at the box office profit numbers movies that should not be as popular or even popular at all sell high and good movies (like Iron Giant) that deserve more praise tanked. The trend that Disney saw was that the CGI movies were beating their traditional movies in spades... they did not bother to look at anything else or ask people why they did not go to their movies.

[mikeszekely]

Did you see Return to Neverland? How about Beauty and the Beast - Enchanted Christmas? Maybe Aladdin and the King of Theives? Pocohontas II - Journey to a New World? Lion King II: Simba's Pride? No? But everyone loves the Little Mermaid II - Return to the Sea even more than the original, right?

No.

Disney has been churning out crapass direct-to-video sequels to their best movies for years. They are usually so bad and cheaply made that they don't even bother to get the original voice talent. It's only a matter of time before we see Bambi: The Revenge! Pixar as a company were comitted to not making direct-to-video abominations that lessen the appeal of the original classic film. Thus, they made Toy Story 2 which was every bit as good as the original, if not better. Disney has no such qualms. They know that it will make money because parents are stupid and many of the kids forced to watch this crap haven't learned the hard lessons about commercialism just yet... or they too young to articulate it.

Sure there are other companies who can put out good CG animation. Dreamworks is quite nice. But Disney hasn't proven that they can do much other than make a quick buck by reusing a logo.

They may own the property and have every right to do this - but the probability is extremely high that any Toy Story 3 that they attempt to make without Pixar is going suck a whole, whole lot.

Just so you know, this nil to do with being a hard, pessimistic MW boarder and everything about recognizing talent (which makes a movie because there is good story to be told) and corporate greed (which doesn't care as long as it makes money).

Now, you tell me which one was the reason Toy Story 3 is going to exist.

Yes, I did see Aladdin and the King of Thieves. I've seen all three, and liked all three. I also liked Lion King II and Lion King 1 and 1/2 is my favorite of the Lion King movies. Stitch: the Movie was highly entertaining, but suffered a bit from being more the pilot to a Saturday morning cartoon than from being an actual stand alone movie. And Buzz Lightyear of the Star Command was better than either of the Toy Story movies. I couldn't stop laughing when I saw it the first time, and the giant laser didn't work because the batteries were in it upside down. In any case, I hated both Beauty and the Beast movies, and both Little Mermaid movies. Didn't see either Pocahontes movies.

Now the funny thing about Disney... or Pixar, or just about anyone out there making movies today... are you ready for this? They're all in it to make money. I know, it's shocking, but it's the goal of a business, be it a movie studio, a grocery store, an automobile maker, etc, to make enough money to turn a profit.

Disney, nor any other movie studio, has never made a movie because "there is a good story to be told." They make a movie because they believe there's a story that people are willing to pay to see. And they learn what we want to see by trial and error... either people go to see their movies or not. Usually, it's a fairly logical assumption that sequels work, and as I've already said, yes, I have liked some of their sequels. With a little more budget for production, yeah, I would have loved to see them in the theater.

Which actually makes me think of something. Those direct to video releases? They're not intended to be on par with the theatrical releases. They're intended for kids who always watch a particular movie (for my niece, it was Shrek) so their poor parents don't have to watch the same movie over and over and over. If Toy Story 3 is going to be a theatrical release, it's hardly fair to compare it to Disney's direct to video releases.

Especially when you haven't even seen a preview or anything. That's jumping the gun. You can't argue that "it's not about being pessmistic, it's about recognizing talent," when you have no idea if the people working on Toy Story 3 are talented or not. It's absolutely pessimistic, because you're saying that Toy Story 3 is going to suck when the only thing you know about it is that Pixar isn't working on it.

And of course, the only reason Pixar isn't working on it is because they split with Disney. Why? They wanted a bigger slice of the pie. It all comes back to money.

[bsu legato]

I think the oddest thing I've ever seen in Disney animation, which was simultaneously the funniest and most horrifying thing I've seen in Disney animation was a short clip from the 40s of war propaganda.

VERY anti-German (and not just anti-Nazi)...   Wish I knew where to find the clip online...  I saw it at a friends house. I was more than a little shocked...   This was Disney?

Anyway...

Yes! I saw that. A story about a little German boy named Hans who eventually turns into a Nazi War soldier and dies. There is actually a whole collection of that type of disturbing propaganda Disney has an it is available on DVD somewhere. Phil who's one of out ex-Disney guys showed them to us. That was Disney alright.

Oh yeah, the Donald Duck one was hilarious.

Those and a couple like it are on the Disney Goes To War DVDs, which came out last spring. It's a collection of shorts from the war years, with a couple of Disney produced training films thrown in for good measure. A definite "must" for any animation enthusiast.

[JsARCLIGHT]

But in the clawing fight for your entertainment dollar the company making the product has to realize that they have to make something you want, not something you just automatically buy. Disney got by for a long time just on name. Parents would automatically go to the Disney movies and buy the Disney brand just because "it was Disney". Now the mouse finds itself having to actually compete for that slice of the pie and it is getting it's clock cleaned. Yes all things in this world are about money, but to just keep riding the same dead pony instead of giving people their "money's worth" will kill Disney eventually. Pixar deserves the hordes of cash they think they are entitled to as in my mind they "earned" my money and everyone else's... Disney did not.

[mikeszekely]

But in the clawing fight for your entertainment dollar the company making the product has to realize that they have to make something you want, not something you just automatically buy. Disney got by for a long time just on name. Parents would automatically go to the Disney movies and buy the Disney brand just because "it was Disney". Now the mouse finds itself having to actually compete for that slice of the pie and it is getting it's clock cleaned. Yes all things in this world are about money, but to just keep riding the same dead pony instead of giving people their "money's worth" will kill Disney eventually. Pixar deserves the hordes of cash they think they are entitled to as in my mind they "earned" my money and everyone else's... Disney did not.

I never said that Pixar didn't deserve a bigger slice of the pie, although I do think they're a little overrated. I mean, I loved Monsters Inc, but I hated a Bug's Life, thought Finding Nemo was a little boring, and enjoyed the Toy Story movies, but less than a lot of other movies Disney's made.

My point, though, is that we're not Disney's target audience for the direct-to-video sequels, and that maybe we should at least wait to see a preview before we put Toy Story 3 in the "sucks" column.

[JsARCLIGHT]

And my point was that Disney is really going to have to dig deep on this one. They are at a crossroads with the loss of Pixar... they actually have to carry themselves again based on those rarely found attributes of creativity and talent. Rehashing all their properties on direct to video releases may keep the bill collectors away for a while but it will not keep the company alive for long. It's put up or shut up time for the mouse and from what I keep seeing they are not ready for this fight right now... but only time will tell. All Dynasties fall and all kings die, but a few keep coming back to suprise us.

[EXO]

mikeszekely... you have just won this award!

people doing things for... gulp... money???? Shocker! But if that the sole reason why anyone gets up in the morning, then why get up at all...

but here are some facts that may or may not be obvious to you.

Toy Story 2 was meant to be a direct to video release. Pixar was more than happy to do something for something that didn't have the big return a theatrical release would. But guess what? They wanted to tell a good story also. When Disney realized that the quality they were going to deliver exceeded their expectations, that's when they decided it was going to be released in the theatres. Which was also fine with Pixar. You'd think that with the wider release they would have just pocketed the extra cash in the bigger budget, but they decided to use it on the movie instead.

I think this was when money came between Disney and Pixar. When Pixar told Disney that Toy Story 2 would fulfill on of the movies required in their contract, Disney told them that this wouldn't be so, since it was meant to be a direct to video release. Argument followed between "meant to be" and "actually is" and the rest is history...

Edited November 17, 2004 by >EXO<

[bsu legato]

I don't think that the Mouse House has the creative juice to pull this one off on their own. Although CGI is without a doubt the "flavor of the month" with audiences, Pixars films succeed so well because they are fundamentally good movies. The Incredibles could have been traditional hand drawn animation and it still would have been an excellent movie. But as JsARC pointed out, the suits who make the decisions can't or won't see that. All they know is that 3D > 2D in terms of box office returns. Hence the closure of their 2D studios. Too bad it never dawned on them that the reason that their 2D offerings have done so poorly because they're just not very good.

Edited November 17, 2004 by bsu legato

[Wes]

JsARCLIGHT, does your chart include video sales, or is it just theature tickets?

Yeah, we all know companies want to make money, but they should show costomers some freaking respect. And it's annoying when they take their business far more like a science then an art. Not to go too far off-topic, I've always been able to pick up a Nintendo-made game and be very happy with it. Same goes for a few other game companies. Disney used to be like that, are they now?

btw Exo you got the wrong pic, it's this one:

[JsARCLIGHT]

JsARCLIGHT, does your chart include video sales, or is it just theature tickets?

The chart's numbers are only reflective of final US Box Office Theater Receipts (grand total on the last day of theatrical release, not inclusive of "dollar shows" or other second run establishment income) and do not reflect such hard to calculate (or just plain hard to get from the actual property holders) numbers as rental incomes, actual adjusted video sales (VHS and DVD) or other revenue streams (such as mechandising). Also take into account that some movies do much better in Internation release than domestic, thus making more money that adds to the total. Also also remember that the budgetary numbers do not include the ancillary expenses like advertising (which for some releases can rival or even outspend the actual production budget).

This little chart was an in-house informal study I comissioned at my company just to show people why the misconception of "CG is better for business" is spreading like wildfire. I myself was suprised by some of the numbers. (all data shown on the chart is as accurate as could be found, sources can be named for specific numbers if people want to question them. When no accurate numbers could be found, or no data was released by the parent companies... perhaps to hide something like a massive loss... "not calculatable" was shown and in those cases those titles were removed from the equasion when determining the averages).

[EXO]

JsARCLIGHT, does your chart include video sales, or is it just theature tickets?

Yeah, we all know companies want to make money, but they should show costomers some freaking respect. And it's annoying when they take their business far more like a science then an art. Not to go too far off-topic, I've always been able to pick up a Nintendo-made game and be very happy with it. Same goes for a few other game companies. Disney used to be like that, are they now?

btw Exo you got the wrong pic, it's this one:

LOL... that looks like Raistlin from Dragonlance??? Why is he a Master of the obvious???

Now Ackbar... you'd think everyone knew that it was a trap when they discovered the shields were still up...

[mikeszekely]

Hey, it's you guys acting like Disney is a bunch of Nazi facists just because they're trying to make money, not me.

And I'm sorry, it still seems ridiculous to me that you guys have such loathing for a movie that you know nothing about, save that it's a sequel to Toy Story and that Pixar is not working on it. For all you know, the studio that is working on Toy Story 3 could be huge fans of the first two, and end up turning out a really good movie. I mean, seriously, can't you guys at least wait for a preview before you being your rant?

[tetsujin]

I mean, seriously, can't you guys at least wait for a preview before you being(sic) your rant?

I think it's fair to be skeptical at this point. Every Pixar production I've ever seen has been a damn fine piece of work. Disney can't match that track record.

[mikeszekely]

I mean, seriously, can't you guys at least wait for a preview before you being(sic) your rant?

I think it's fair to be skeptical at this point. Every Pixar production I've ever seen has been a damn fine piece of work. Disney can't match that track record.

Skeptical, sure. Approach with caution, sure. It's too early to dismiss it entirely, though.

[JsARCLIGHT]

In the end everything we present on all sides of this is opinion and not fact. The only facts that can apply to something being "good or not" when it comes to movies are theatrical ticket sales and home video sales compared to budget. That is the only hard number fact you can throw at something like this and it will be a long time before we have that data for Toy Story 3, if we get it at all. As of late Disney has gone to great lengths to hide their budgets from everyone but their shareholders... as many (myself included) speculate that is because they are taking galactic losses on some of their releases. If you take my numbers into hard consideration the only conclusion you can draw (just from those numbers) is that without Pixar's aid Disney was on a steady decline of larger and larger losses on it's releases. Unless something new pops up to replace Pixar's grand money funnel that they have had for these past few years Disney's production side of the business will tank completely... then they will raise ticket prices at Disney Land even higher as then that will be one of their last bastions of profit.

[Vespaeda]

If this comes down to :"...is Disney a better or even competent studio, than Pixar", I say give Pixar a chance to gather even a limited studio staff & production facilies for 'retro'( ) 2D work and see if their movie blows "Home on the Range" and "Treasure Planet" out of the water

My .02 CDN,

Disney has been the traditional 'clearinghouse' for family value/morals, G-rated US-anime media. In this tradition-chucking, 21st century America, the sizable EO/all-inclusive policy & PC/socio-business of Disney is struggling to produce cohesive product w/depth of heart and lasting interest. Most likely because they

are fighting amongst themselves at many levels w/in, for the biggest hunk of potential cheese from the Mouse fortune & name. A house divided against itself cannot stand; they cannot please all of the people, all of the time. At first, within, and thus, without.

Of course, as a business, they are in it for the money. However, virtually any of the greatest & loveds art that has been produced in any media through time, was done for the love of the art, the embodiment of vision & dream. Crass, calculated marketing, even w/the best tools at hand cannot deliver content,...to content.

Look at any franchise, pioneering quality is eventually replaced by rote mediocrity and eventually downright $h!t garnished w/flashy trash(McDonalds, Star Wars, Sat. AM cartoons(not sure about this one ), etc..)

[JB0]

The image macros have made me sad.

I must right wrongs and triumph over evil!

[Agent ONE]

Oh quit you little girlie-men!! Disney hasn't screwed the pooch yet. I have faith they won't rape your sissy little childhoods.

[ogami]

Disney is a goodie-looking yet evil-inside company... there is nothing good you can expect from them...

(I really hate what they did to Power Ranger. I am a Sentai fan... and Oh boy... Disney did even worst than Saban)

[Jemstone]

Oh quit you little girlie-men!! Disney hasn't screwed the pooch yet. I have faith they won't rape your sissy little childhoods.

I don't know man. Try telling that to the animators that commited suicide because of Disney (the stuff you won't see on the news).

[EXO]

Oh quit you little girlie-men!!  Disney hasn't screwed the pooch yet.  I have faith they won't rape your sissy little childhoods. 

I don't know man. Try telling that to the animators that commited suicide because of Disney (the stuff you won't see on the news).

Not only animators, but the strawberry farmer that Disney ran out of his farm to make the parking lot for Disneyland.... it's the happiest place in the world.

[Jemstone]

This little chart was an in-house informal study I comissioned at my company just to show people why the misconception of "CG is better for business" is spreading like wildfire. I myself was suprised by some of the numbers. (all data shown on the chart is as accurate as could be found, sources can be named for specific numbers if people want to question them. When no accurate numbers could be found, or no data was released by the parent companies... perhaps to hide something like a massive loss... "not calculatable" was shown and in those cases those titles were removed from the equasion when determining the averages).

Actually, "not calculated" mostly like goes both ways.

Pokemon 1st Movie was very successful (both CNN and MSNBC had an impromptu media coverage on the craziness the day it was released complete with a "what is anime" segment which was full of misinfo) and that's why it allowed them to continue to release Pokemon 2000 in theaters which didn't fare so well. The 3rd was direct to video.

[JsARCLIGHT]

In the case of the "import" movies most of the budget numbers given in my study were not the "true" budgets of the pictures... most of the time they are rediculously low because they either were the cost of importing, redubbing and releasing someone else's efforts or they were not given (or not accurately found in my info gathering). I actually wanted to take most of those "import" films out of the equasion alltogether (like the IMAX films) because they were not actual domestic product but just rehash... but by the time I noted that the math had all been done.

When I made my comment about the "non calculatable" reffering to a massive loss of cash in budgetary concerns I was speaking to th domestic products... like the Disney movie "Brother Bear" and Warner's "Looney Toons Back in Action". Certain people I spoke with when tracking down the budget numbers for those movies made comments that both were a massive loss... like "Home on the Range"... but Disney was shy about releasing the actual budget hoping word would not get out of their loss that might damage the potential of "Home on the Range" which later was found to also be a galactic loss. As for "Looney Toons" most people felt the movie was poorly marketed and advertised leading to lackluster ticket sales... I did come across the ad budget for Looney Toons and from what it was calculated to be Warner did not have much hope in it from the start. From what I have heard (numbers are not "real" and thus were not used) Brother Bear had a budget as large if not bigger than Home and thus would have suffered almost the same great loss ratio... as for Looney Toons I have yet to get any info on it's true budget, but even if it were a super low cost production it still lost tremendous cash at the box office.

Edited November 18, 2004 by JsARCLIGHT

[the white drew carey]

Oh quit you little girlie-men!! Disney hasn't screwed the pooch yet. I have faith they won't rape your sissy little childhoods.

Oh, Disney's been raping childhood's since the first time they adapted an original story. Go read the original Pinocchio and tell me what happens to Jiminy Cricket (which Disney decided not to include), do you think that the original story of Aladdin had all of those annoying songs? So you think any of those original stories had those annoying songs?

Disney simply creates a model which they continue to pump clones of until they percieve it has run dry (ie- the drop in the market for 2D films). Now they believe that CG is the way to go and will begin to create a new batch of manure.

Thank goodness Pixar broke up their relationship.

[Jemstone]

When I made my comment about the "non calculatable" reffering to a massive loss of cash in budgetary concerns I was speaking to th domestic products... like the Disney movie "Brother Bear" and Warner's "Looney Toons Back in Action". Certain people I spoke with when tracking down the budget numbers for those movies made comments that both were a massive loss... like "Home on the Range"... but Disney was shy about releasing the actual budget hoping word would not get out of their loss that might damage the potential of "Home on the Range" which later was found to also be a galactic loss. As for "Looney Toons" most people felt the movie was poorly marketed and advertised leading to lackluster ticket sales... I did come across the ad budget for Looney Toons and from what it was calculated to be Warner did not have much hope in it from the start. From what I have heard (numbers are not "real" and thus were not used) Brother Bear had a budget as large if not bigger than Home and thus would have suffered almost the same great loss ratio... as for Looney Toons I have yet to get any info on it's true budget, but even if it were a super low cost production it still lost tremendous cash at the box office.

On Looney Toons Back in Action, I think Warner Bros knew it was going to flop. If you'd like I could find out the story behind it because one of the animators that worked on it works here. Based on what he's said in the past was that nobody was enthusiastic about doing it and the studio figured it would be a flop (make that major flop) about midway in production after all the endorsements/advertising deals were made. Yeah, it's safe to say it sucked hard.

Edited November 18, 2004 by Jemstone

[JsARCLIGHT]

If you have inroads to the budget numbers that would help add another number to the 2D pile's final tally.

[mikeszekely]

Oh quit you little girlie-men!! Disney hasn't screwed the pooch yet. I have faith they won't rape your sissy little childhoods.

Well-said, Agent.

[Jemstone]

Oh quit you little girlie-men!!  Disney hasn't screwed the pooch yet.  I have faith they won't rape your sissy little childhoods. 

Well-said, Agent.

Great cop out. Why bother debate point by factual point when you can just pat the doorknob lover on the back for tactless reply........

[mikeszekely]

Oh quit you little girlie-men!!  Disney hasn't screwed the pooch yet.  I have faith they won't rape your sissy little childhoods. 

Well-said, Agent.

Great cop out. Why bother debate point by factual point when you can just pat the doorknob lover on the back for tactless reply........

Oh, I'm not saying it's well-said because it was a well-articulated point that happens to back what I said earlier. I thought it was well said because it amuses the hell out of me when AgentOne says stuff like that.

[Jemstone]

Oh quit you little girlie-men!!  Disney hasn't screwed the pooch yet.  I have faith they won't rape your sissy little childhoods. 

Well-said, Agent.

Great cop out. Why bother debate point by factual point when you can just pat the doorknob lover on the back for tactless reply........

Oh, I'm not saying it's well-said because it was a well-articulated point that happens to back what I said earlier. I thought it was well said because it amuses the hell out of me when AgentOne says stuff like that.

What? If that's the case carry your A1 loving and muscle squeezing session to the Hate Kill Detroy thread if your agreeable comments indeed have nothing to do with the topic. (as if that's the case)

Edited November 18, 2004 by Jemstone

[EXO]

Skeptical, sure.  Approach with caution, sure.  It's too early to dismiss it entirely, though.

so...

Yes, I did see Aladdin and the King of Thieves. I've seen all three, and liked all three. I also liked Lion King II and Lion King 1 and 1/2 is my favorite of the Lion King movies. Stitch: the Movie was highly entertaining, but suffered a bit from being more the pilot to a Saturday morning cartoon than from being an actual stand alone movie. And Buzz Lightyear of the Star Command was better than either of the Toy Story movies. I couldn't stop laughing when I saw it the first time, and the giant laser didn't work because the batteries were in it upside down. In any case, I hated both Beauty and the Beast movies, and both Little Mermaid movies. Didn't see either Pocahontes movies.

I guess if they keep feeding you bowls of sh!t for the umpteenth time, at some point you begin to enjoy it...

I guess...

I wouldn't know...

[Blaine23]

Yes, I did see Aladdin and the King of Thieves.  I've seen all three, and liked all three.  I also liked Lion King II and Lion King 1 and 1/2 is my favorite of the Lion King movies.  Stitch: the Movie was highly entertaining...  And Buzz Lightyear of the Star Command was better than either of the Toy Story movies.  In any case, I hated both Beauty and the Beast movies, and both Little Mermaid movies.  Didn't see either Pocahontes movies.

Seriously? I only saw parts of some of them when hanging with my nephews and nieces and the drop in quality of animation, acting, etc was horrendous. If you think that's good stuff... then I guess you probably will like Toy Story 3, no matter what.

Now the funny thing about Disney... or Pixar, or just about anyone out there making movies today... are you ready for this?  They're all in it to make money.  I know, it's shocking, but it's the goal of a business, be it a movie studio, a grocery store, an automobile maker, etc, to make enough money to turn a profit.

That is my point.

Disney, nor any other movie studio, has never made a movie because "there is a good story to be told."

Again, this is also my point. You can't count on The Studio to make a movie for any other reason that moo-lah.

Pixar isn't the Studio, they are the artists and I really, honestly believe they make movies for the right reasons. They really seem to take their time and try to make movies that resonate with kids and grownups alike. Walt Disney built his company on this ideal and it shows with the classic Disney animated films. Now, it's all boardroom decisions, etc. This is why I don't think TS3 has much of a chance of being any good without Pixar's guiding hand. Disney didn't have anything to do with bringing you characters like Woody, Buzz, etc... they just sign the check. What on Earth makes you believe that they have any desire to make a good movie? I doubt they even consider it.

Which actually makes me think of something.  Those direct to video releases?  They're not intended to be on par with the theatrical releases.  They're intended for kids who always watch a particular movie (for my niece, it was Shrek) so their poor parents don't have to watch the same movie over and over and over.  If Toy Story 3 is going to be a theatrical release, it's hardly fair to compare it to Disney's direct to video releases.

Like >EXO< said - Funny story about that. Actually Disney wanted Pixar to make a cheap, quick job of Toy Story 2 and send it direct to video. Their point was, "you've got the models, you have so much animation done - it should be easy." Pixar instead took their time and made a film so good that even Disney saw the potential to sign a few more checks and put it in the theaters.

So, you've got one company that make movies good enough to escape Direct To Video Hell and another company that pushes for cheap, quick product. I wonder why my trust in Pixar is higher than Disney?

Especially when you haven't even seen a preview or anything.  That's jumping the gun.  You can't argue that "it's not about being pessmistic, it's about recognizing talent," when you have no idea if the people working on Toy Story 3 are talented or not.  It's absolutely pessimistic, because you're saying that Toy Story 3 is going to suck when the only thing you know about it is that Pixar isn't working on it.

Yep. My point was that I'm not the type to automatically assume everything will suck.... but in this case, I'm making an exception. The fact that John Lasseter is not involved is a very sad thing. If you liked the first two movies - you liked John Lasseter's work, not Disney's. It's that simple. I could care less if Dreamworks or Fox or anybody's else logo was attached to the film - I just know that this guy told a good story.

It's also a case where this was not an established license, this was Pixar's baby. It isn't like someone else picking up Spiderman or X-Men films - this was Pixar's concept, idea, and execution. I understand why Disney is doing this - they own the license and they want to make cash. I just don't think it stands much of a chance of retaining any of the quality of the original Pixar movies.

And of course, the only reason Pixar isn't working on it is because they split with Disney.  Why?  They wanted a bigger slice of the pie.  It all comes back to money.

Yep. But you're missing the point here, Mike. I'm not railing against the nature of profit VS art. I can totally understand it. I'm not real surprised that the Disney/Pixar/Toy Story deal has gone down the way it has.

All that being said, as a guy with $10 in his pocket - I wouldn't be as likely to spend it on Toy Story 3 as I would a new Disney film or a new Pixar film. It's my choice. And if I think that Toy Story 3 is gonna suck without Pixar and Lasseter - that's my opinion. I think I've given plenty of reasons as to why I think it'll suck and I also think they make a decent amount of sense.

But then again, I'm the type of guy that wouldn't rate Buzz Lightyear of the Star Command as "better than either of the Toy Story movies". So, if the movie comes out and it's fantastic - I'll be pleasantly surprised. Either way, I'm thinking you'll probably dig it.

Edited November 18, 2004 by Blaine23