Jump to content
Goose

Pixar Announce Future Slate

Recommended Posts

There was a rumour recently that Pixar would be making a Doctor Strange film for Marvel.

It's unlikely however, as that would be so completely fucking awesome, the world would be knocked off it's orbit and collide with the sun.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad monster inc 2 was dropped I think that film ended perfectly and there was no need for a squeal.

Unless something has happened in the last month this isn't the case. In fact its release date was moved forward a few days to early November 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm completely confused as to what Pixar's future offerings are at the moment, can anyone (paging Lord Cookie) sum it up?

True, it's a little dull though.

I don't get the dislike for Cars at all and never have. Some of the humour is more puerile than most of their films yes but for the most part it works well (albeit a bit of a Doc Hollywood rip off) and tells the story pretty effectively. The last couple of scenes - the finale race primarily) always strike me as well done. I could see people arguing about Ratatouille which has a far more adult/mature vibe or Bug's Life (too many characters to keep up with/fully care about) or Up/Wall-E (possibly fail to deliver on beauty of first halves although I disagree but think it's a valid argument) but Cars has never struck me as one of the weaker ones. The only thing I can see as a valid argument on Cars would be that it's derivative (as are a few Pixar films) and less gender neutral than most of their output (although I'd argue that the Incredibles is equally boy interest heavy and I don't see as much carping about that...) That said I'm happy to listen to counter argument - it just seems that everyone says it's their weakest film because it's their weakest film. Idgi.

That and the fact that I love buying the cars for my sons collection :) Takes me right back to my Star Wars figure days :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless something has happened in the last month this isn't the case. In fact its release date was moved forward a few days to early November 2012.

ahh bollocks :( I'd much prefer it if they brought out newt then tried a squeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm completely confused as to what Pixar's future offerings are at the moment, can anyone (paging Lord Cookie) sum it up?

Cars 2 is next (I assume we will get a teaser trailer with the home release of Toy Story 3). After that we have Brave in the summer of 2012 and Monsters Inc. 2 in the winter. Newt would have fitted in somewhere in the middle of those three but has now been canned.

John Carter of Mars isn't a traditional Pixar film so I'm ignoring that for now.

Hopefully they have a whole bunch of other projects currently at various stages and I really hope they are all new ideas because the only film they have ever made that really had sequel potential was Toy Story.

I don't get the dislike for Cars at all and never have. Some of the humour is more puerile than most of their films yes but for the most part it works well (albeit a bit of a Doc Hollywood rip off) and tells the story pretty effectively. The last couple of scenes - the finale race primarily) always strike me as well done. I could see people arguing about Ratatouille which has a far more adult/mature vibe or Bug's Life (too many characters to keep up with/fully care about) or Up/Wall-E (possibly fail to deliver on beauty of first halves although I disagree but think it's a valid argument) but Cars has never struck me as one of the weaker ones. The only thing I can see as a valid argument on Cars would be that it's derivative (as are a few Pixar films) and less gender neutral than most of their output (although I'd argue that the Incredibles is equally boy interest heavy and I don't see as much carping about that...) That said I'm happy to listen to counter argument - it just seems that everyone says it's their weakest film because it's their weakest film. Idgi.

I don't hate Cars but it is certainly the weakest of all Pixar films for me. There are a number of reasons for that but the key reason is the characters. I think it has the weakest cast of characters of any of their films. Yes, they are identifiable (helping with them being such a merchandising force) but they feel too broad. Mater serves a similar role as Dory does in Finding Nemo (the comic foil that irritates the lead yet becomes their best friend). In Cars that character never really transcends being their purely for humour whereas Dory does. The other characters are similarly superficial.

The story is a little muddled. You get that Lasseter wanted to tell a story about his transformative trip down Route 66 but it doesn't necessarily work to tell a compelling story aimed at the family (I have nephews that like the film but that is pretty much down to the racing and nothing else). The jokes are weaker, the pathos is weaker and the pacing is poor (I know the story is about taking it easy but the middle of the film just sags) and I don't care about these characters in the same way that I do any of the other Pixar lot. I don't think it helps that it is so hard to be expressive with the characters. They were restricted with some of the characters in Toy Story but whenever their faces couldn't convey emotion they normally had expressive bodies. With Cars everything pretty much comes from the eyes and the grill mouths and neither really offer great subtlety when you compare it to Remy in Ratatouille or Wall-E with his amazing eyes and eyebrow gestures.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Cars is the only Pixar film I've not enjoyed. It's perfectly functional but it just felt so run of the mill in comparison. It's still better than almost anyone else's output, though I've not seen How To Train Your Dragon, which I hear is very good indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm completely confused as to what Pixar's future offerings are at the moment, can anyone (paging Lord Cookie) sum it up?

I don't get the dislike for Cars at all and never have. Some of the humour is more puerile than most of their films yes but for the most part it works well (albeit a bit of a Doc Hollywood rip off) and tells the story pretty effectively. The last couple of scenes - the finale race primarily) always strike me as well done. I could see people arguing about Ratatouille which has a far more adult/mature vibe or Bug's Life (too many characters to keep up with/fully care about) or Up/Wall-E (possibly fail to deliver on beauty of first halves although I disagree but think it's a valid argument) but Cars has never struck me as one of the weaker ones. The only thing I can see as a valid argument on Cars would be that it's derivative (as are a few Pixar films) and less gender neutral than most of their output (although I'd argue that the Incredibles is equally boy interest heavy and I don't see as much carping about that...) That said I'm happy to listen to counter argument - it just seems that everyone says it's their weakest film because it's their weakest film. Idgi.

That and the fact that I love buying the cars for my sons collection :) Takes me right back to my Star Wars figure days :)

I don't dislike it at all and actually really like the racing scenes in particular. As a matter of fact I much prefer it to Finding Nemo.

Then again I'm not much of a fan of the Andrew Stanton films, they all feel derivative of portions of Disney classics to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to train your dragon is better than cars. So is cloudy with a chance of meatballs.

Both these films are better than a few Pixar films, I just think Pixar have got such a great reputation (deservedly so) that everybody puts their films into a different category compared to other CGI animated films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough (all prior comments on Cars). I still don't 100% get it but I'd probably agree that there is a lower level of transcendence in Cars than in something like Wall-E. That said I find the pacing of Cars better than Wall-E because that and Ratatouille feel as if they peter out after a majestic first act whereas Cars always seems to build to the final race. When the screen fade to black and opens up on the 'Today is race day' voiceover it always gets me right there.

HTTYD and CWACOM are possibly better - they certainly stand head and shoulders above the Hoodwinkeds and the Sharks Tale animated dross rubbish out there.

Nemo always upsets me because I can't shake the feeling that (don't read unless you want Nemo ruined as much as it is for me)

Nemo dies in the net and the rest is an insanity dream by Marlon. Yes I know it isn't but it always feels like that to me which makes the end a little more harrowing than I'd like.[/spolier]

Wall-E wins all though as, apart from the fact it's an ace film (although the start is better than the end) it's a perfect way to explain and describe autism to someone who doesn't know anything about it. Wall-E is the most autistic character committed to film in fact, to the best of my knowledge anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both these films are better than a few Pixar films, I just think Pixar have got such a great reputation (deservedly so) that everybody puts their films into a different category compared to other CGI animated films.

Yup. Let's be honest though, almost all the output from everyone else is pap.

Also, they should have called it Wall-E: The autistic robot

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a guy I speak to on Twitter from Pixar. We chat on occasion and both have a massive love of Tron.

He just sent me these cool walking teapots

tinsq.jpg

EDIT: Image fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a guy I speak to on Twitter from Pixar. We chat on occasion and both have a massive love of Tron.

He just sent me these cool walking teapots

155214108-b1ffb9102db0abd0130729022bff911c.4c8e3568-scaled.jpg

Picture doesn't work.

I quite enjoyed Cars, but I just couldn't get on with Ratatouille.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before, but my disbelief was just not capable of being suspended to the levels necessary for Cars to work as a concept.

Where do baby cars come from? who builds the buildings? how does a car put a wheel clamp on another car? who makes the tyres? how did they evolve? ... ?

So, is the Monsters Inc. sequel still on, or not? Monsters Inc. is my favourite Pixar film, but the idea of a sequel makes me shudder, it was such a perfectly rounded film, with absolutely no need for a sequel, and I worry that it will be impossible for the story in a sequel to feel anything other than contrived. Of all the Pixar films, it is easily the least suited to having a sequel.

Now, when are Disney going to pick up on my Finding Nemo 2 plot idea posted earlier in this thread? (or possibly a different thread).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've said it before, but my disbelief was just not capable of being suspended to the levels necessary for Cars to work as a concept.

Where do baby cars come from? who builds the buildings? how does a car put a wheel clamp on another car? who makes the tyres? how did they evolve? ... ?

Bloody hell, it's just bog-standard anthropomorphism. Talking cars!

Did you spend the first 10 minutes of A Bug's Life internally reconciling how insects managed to pull off speaking - in English, at that - despite not having the necessary physiology or culture? Talking insects!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before, but my disbelief was just not capable of being suspended to the levels necessary for Cars to work as a concept.

Where do baby cars come from? who builds the buildings? how does a car put a wheel clamp on another car? who makes the tyres? how did they evolve? ... ?

dephs5.jpg?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell, it's just bog-standard anthropomorphism. Talking cars!

Did you spend the first 10 minutes of A Bug's Life internally reconciling how insects managed to pull off speaking - in English, at that - despite not having the necessary physiology or culture? Talking insects!

It's really not the same at all though.

We hear them talking to each other in English, but I assume that they're just really buzzing and chirping at each other, and the English language is just for our convenience as a viewer (like, when a film is set in Germany, but the cast still speak in English). And whilst their level of communication is above what is realistic for actual insects, there's nothing about A Bug's Life that you can't easily imagine being possible in a reality not too dissimilar to ours.

It's not a matter of "what the fuck, that's not how things work in reality" it's a matter of "what the fuck, how would these things work in any reality?".

Talking cars are also fine as a concept, I have no issue with that aspect. I don't have a similar problem with other anthropomorphic vehicles - Roary the Racing car is fine, as is Thomas the Tank Engine, Jimbo, etc - the difference with these is that their fictional universe is still very similar to ours, and still has people in it. Where do those vehicles come from? they're made by the people. Who makes the buildings? the people. Etc... Even Chuggington, where I don't think you ever see the people, still seems set in a reality where people exist, so makes sense. Cars is clearly set in a world without humans, the Cars are the prime intelligence on the planet, but where do they come from, and how the fuck do they do things without opposable thumbs?

Cars can only possibly work as a concept if you're a creationist, surely, and even then "the creator" would have to have a big influence on the day to day running of things.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tangled Trailer

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/09/15/movie-trailer-tangled-aka-rapunzel-meets-pirates-of-the-caribbean/

Lets hope it is terrible marketing and the film is good (a la How to Train Your Dragon) because this doesn't look great. It is a shame as the early test footage looked amazing.

Looks like it wants to be a bit of El Dorado (sadly underrated but terrible third act), New Groove, Shrek and a million other things it's missed the mark on.

Then again maybe it's just a rubbish trailer - the one for Toy Story 3 wasn't great and look how that turned out :)

(But I think it'll stink, that said).

Diff subject - one of my main and hugest Pixar questions in my mind is probably whether they knew how much Wall-E would be/was and is an autism parable or whether that was just luck. To the best of my knowledge they've never mentioned it during production or after but from my side (my son is very high up on the ASD spectrum) I know that Wall-E has become almost an educational film that we use to explain autism to others and a number of parents of ASD children have said the same sort of thing to us as well (to the extent that it's a group of social misfits and special need robots that effectively save the day

or does that count as a spoiler

? I'd love to know if someone on the team had experience of looking after someone with severe audio/action echolalia and decided to put that into the film. Its probably one of the five questions I'll ask if I get to Heaven such is the likelihood of my ever finding out on this planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that Wall-E has become almost an educational film that we use to explain autism to others and a number of parents of ASD children have said the same sort of thing to us as well (to the extent that it's a group of social misfits and special need robots that effectively save the day

That's just made me think of the Michael Keaton film, 'The Dream Team'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC3, Right now, Pixar's Top 25 Moments.

Probably nothing new, but they are actually talking to the people who wrote/directed the flicks rather than Vernon Kay and Big Brother has-beens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.