Solid Snake

Yeah, I think we know about that...somehow we didn't put that up here though.

Spottedfeather

I didn't like Bug's Life. It was their weakest up until Cars. Didn't really care for Monsters INC. And I HATE Ratatouille. The only Pixar besides The Incredibles that I half way like are the two Toy Story movies. And only then because the majority of the characters are human looking. Finding Nemo ? Looked good but weak story. Kind of annoying.

Spottedfeather

I only liked Mater the little bit that I did because he was played by Larry The Cable Guy.

Solid Snake

Wait what? There are 3 TS films. And a positive reason for liking them are cuz the toys look more human? What?

Spottedfeather

Toy Story 3 was so horrible, I like to imagine that it doesn't exist. That way, I won't get depressed the way I did when I saw it. The animation was incredible as always, but the story, specifically the ending, was poorly written. And things that look human speaking makes a hell of a lot more sense than talking cars or rats or ants, doesn't it ? That's why live action musicals are stupid. People don't just break out into song in real life. Just doesn't make sense.

Hokeyboy

Are you that starved for attention?

al_bundy

psycho toys story 3 was the bomb. my 3 year old loves to crush his toys after seeing it

al_bundy

maybe kid's cartoons are not the animation for you? have you looked at anime, manga and hentai?

Solid Snake

Holy fuck...you remind me of chris. Do you have anything against non R rated films and a 2 hour limit? Also...are animated films not real movies?

seriously though, your reasoning doesn't make sense.

RocShemp

Once he reasons that all animated films are worthless, he'll have fully morphed into chris.

Solid Snake

the resurrection...nobody told me about this....the resurrection...we're all going to die.

Spottedfeather

I loved animated movies. Shrek, the first two Toy Story movies, and Beauty And The Beast are some of my favourites. And anime ? I love it. All the usual ones ; Vampire Hunter D, Akira, etc. But I also like Girls Bravo, Tenchi Muyo! OVA, Tweeny Witches, Inuyasha, GoLion (but more specifically, the series that it was made into, Voltron), and Vampire Princess Miyu. I also really liked Animatrix. I also really like mech anime like Robotech.

And R rated movies ? I don't really care what rating a movie has as long as it's a good movie. You don't need swearing to make a good movie. A lot of the G rated Disney movies (more the 80s and early 90s than lately) are among my favourite movies. On the other hand, I really enjoy the darker, more intense, R rated movies.

Michael Corvin

Shrek?

sauce07

Here's some advice, never start off with Shrek when listing your favorite animated movies.

CRM114

Too bad Pixar has decided to pump out sequels now. I liked that they didn't. And Cars is what they choose? Meh. Hopefully, they aren't about to jump the shark.

NiCK Crush

They'll be fine. Cars 2 will probably be on par with the first one and it is going to absolutely bank at the box office.

Monsters University sounds like an interesting take, and I'm looking forward to it. Pixar never lets down. I didn't think Up or Wall-E could possibly be good. It's the last time I'll ever doubt them.

gmanca

What's interesting to note is that all of post-Pixar-purchase films that weren't sequels were in development way before; now you have two of their next three films as sequels. Wall-e and Up are a cut above their other films and I don't see how those get put into development now. Look at how Newt got canceled even though the concept and art looked fantastic.

kstublen

After 11 movies and 18-19 shorts, you'd think Pixar would have earned some trust from people, but I guess not.

I don't think Cars 2 is going to be their best movie, but I think it will be on par with the first Cars, which is still a pretty good movie (and one I've revisited often). And really, while Cars is the "worst" Pixar movie, it just gets a bad rep because of how good the other Pixar movies are.

You're right, because all of the sequels they have done thus far (Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3) were just awful.

If Pixar canceled Newt, it's because they couldn't find a way to make it work. While I was interested in it, I trust their judgment and suspect they had a good reason to not move forward with the project.

You can't be serious. It was such a well-constructed, perfect ending for the franchise and the characters, all of them. I'm amazed that there are people out there who didn't like Toy Story 3. That's the perfect example, as far as I'm concerned, of a franchise that did everything right.

I also love how people think movies (or television or books, for that matter) somehow need to "make sense" or be based in reality. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. In the real world, people don't shrink and rabbits don't talk and carry pocket watches, but Alice in Wonderland is still a great story. Aside from Woody and Buzz, most of the toys don't look human, so what's the difference? Is The Wind in the Willows any less of a classic because the animals talk? If you want "realism," stick to history books and documentaries, because even movies where it's just humans often wouldn't happen in the real world. It must suck to be so jaded that you can't even enjoy a movie unless it's "realistic."

gmanca

You act like Pixar is a wholly separate entity that wasn't influenced by Disney even when they weren't a part of it.

And just because they're ok, doesn't mean that sequels can supplant original material. That might work when you're releasing more than a film a year like Marvel Studios but not when it's Pixar.

Even if I thought that some of their films were overrated, you knew that the next one was going to be something different.

fumanstan

Shrek is fine. DVDTalk's hatred of Shrek continues to amaze me

kstublen

What does Pixar being influenced by Disney have to do with anything? You think that because Disney resorted to sequels Pixar will follow that same model? People need to understand that there is a difference between "official" Disney sequels (of which there were only a few) and the crappy Direct-to-DVD sequels (of which there are many). Last I checked Pixar isn't spitting out Direct-to-DVD sequels; once that happens, we'll talk.

I just love how people have no faith in Pixar, despite being proven wrong over and over again. Oh, they can't make a movie where there's no dialogue for a third of the film. An old man as the lead character in a house of balloons? No way. A rat that is a gourmet chef? Yeah, okay. They've constantly pushed the boundaries of animation and have consistently focused on story and characters.

Yeah, they have a few sequels in development. So what? The two sequels they've delivered thus far were fantastic. Cars is actually a very enjoyable movie, hurt by the fact that it was created by the same studio that has produced some of the best animated movies of all time. They decided to make a sequel to it, and sure, merchandising might have played a part in the decision, but I firmly believe that if Pixar didn't have a compelling story to tell with the characters, they wouldn't have gone ahead with the project. As far as I'm concerned, they've earned that much over the years.

So yeah, they're going to have two sequels back-to-back, but is it really such a big deal? From the looks of the trailers, Cars 2 actually does look pretty different than Cars, but we won't know until we see the movie; and Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 were easily as good as the original movie, although obviously not as groundbreaking. And if I had to bet, I'd put my money on Pixar delivering another critical and commercial hit with Cars 2, because they haven't disappointed me yet. But hey, if Cars 2 sucks I'll be the first to admit it.

And once Cars 2 is done, we'll get The Bear And The Bow Brave, so your desire for a new, original movie should be satisfied. People (not you necessarily) just seem so eager to have Pixar fail, because they haven't failed yet, and it's sort of irritating.

gmanca

Well, I'm not against Pixar, if there's a movie they've made that I haven't enjoyed, I don't go out of my way to put them down.

My only point is that Pixar is having to put out more sequels because they are with Disney and they're putting aside one of the main things that set them apart. All of the sequels have surfaced because Disney was cajoling them to do so lest they be made by Disney without their creative control.

If quality will suffer because they can't put out more than one film at a time, then Disney should let the creative process flow naturally. Talk about how similar films like Rio and Alpha and Omega caused Newt to be canceled is a bit weak.

Solid Snake

they have 2 studios now the one here in teh states and the other in Canada so....yeah.

I love Pixar. What they bring in quality is what most animation films should strive to be. My biggest problem w/ Cars 2 and Monsters University is that...I don't think the story needed to be continued or a backstory fleshed out. Toy Story was fine cuz Andy was growing and so were we (well I was a kid when it came out..so I was growing too)...a continuation of that development felt right. I'm not feeling it for Cars 2, I'll see it though. I have a free ticket..so I've nothing but time to lose. Just bothers me that Mater is a main character over a supporting thing. If it was just for example: McMissle and somehow lightning mcqueen was involved without Mater I'd be game. Mater just doesn't hold my attention, he wasn't horrible in Cars he was just being too close to that line w/ the cheapish humor.

While i may not be totally game w/ Monsters University I feel better about that cuz of the friendship that is Mike and Sully...I would like to know more about the plot though.

fumanstan

I don't see why you feel like everyone should give Pixar the benefit of the doubt. I don't see why you assume people want Pixar to fail either. Nothing wrong with people being skeptical over whatever information comes out about a movie, regardless of who makes it.

kstublen

You do realize that now Ed Catmull and John Lasseter are President and Chief Creative Officer, respectively, of Walt Disney Animation, right?

For Toy Story 2 Disney wanted to make it a Direct-to-DVD sequel, but they didn't go forward without Pixar's involvement. Pixar was involved from the start, albeit not the heads of the company, but when everyone at Pixar wasn't happy with the result Lasseter & Co. took over. So yeah, Disney asked them to do it there and perhaps Pixar was cajoled into making this movie.

Toy Story 3 was a little different though. Disney went ahead with a sequel without Pixar's involvement, but the original project was canceled when Disney bought Pixar and Catmull and Lasseter were promoted. Now, Pixar ended up taking over and creating Toy Story 3, but there's nothing to suggest that they were pressured or forced to do so, especially given Catmull and Lasseter's new positions with Disney. So I don't think I'd agree their hand was forced for Toy Story 3

While I'm not sure when Cars 2 was first conceived, it was at some point after Disney purchased Pixar, considering Cars was the first movie released after the purchase. And according to Lasseter he came up with the idea while promoting the first film in Europe, so that doesn't sound like pressure from Disney to me; of course, he could be lying, but I see no reason to disbelieve his version of conceiving of the sequel.

EDIT: My point is that while Pixar was sort of forced to make Toy Story 2 and maybe Toy Story 3, they definitely weren't forced or pressured to make Cars 2 and most certainly not Monsters University. Projects, both at Disney AND Pixar, don't go forward now without their say-so; sure, they report to Iger, but I don't think he's going to force them to make sequels they don't want to make.