Originally Posted by RichC2 (Post 12817663)

You do what makes money, and giving fans what they want makes you money. I'm not sure why people are so doom and gloom about this shit. I am glad the whole drunk Tony bit was overruled, that just sounds like it'd of bogged down an already shitty movie. The write up in the OP just makes it sound like Disney is dealing with a bunch of children.

Originally Posted by Hokeyboy (Post 12817773)

i'd argue Pixar took a huge dip in quality after the pushing the envelope with Ratatouille, WALL-E, and Up. Three offbeat but extremely charming movies. This was followed by Toy Story 3 (which was wonderful but still "safe"), Cars 2 (which was garbage), Brave (which I enjoy but seems to be widely derided), and Monsters University (ecch). They had a massive artistic and commercial rebound with Inside Out, which was quickly followed by their first relative "flop" with the Dinosaur Kid Movie.

And now we have another sequel this summer. I'm not saying the whole thing was mandated by Disney, but something reeks in the state of Denmark, and it ain't the cheese...

As far as Marvel is concerned, I wouldn't agree that they'd be less prone to Disney interference, now that they've cut all ties with the comics/creative committee side and report directly to Disney itself. How this plays out is yet to be seen, but if we judge by past Disney acquisitions? Yeesh.

And then there's "protecting the brand", which in essence is saying "stick to the formula". That rarely works out for the best. :shrug: I'd love to see a Star Wars movie that spreads its wings. A LOT. Doesn't have to be radically different, but just a fresh angle to new material. Even Civil War, as much as I enjoyed it -- and I did -- was starting to feel a little stale at times.

Originally Posted by rocket1312 (Post 12817777)

The drunken Tony stuff was taken out at the behest of MARVEL. The same Marvel who no longer has any say in the creative direction of the movies.

Originally Posted by majorjoe23 (Post 12817783)

I feel like if Disney was pushing the sequels, we would probably be getting them quicker. 13 years is a long time to wait for a sequel to a kids movie.

Originally Posted by Hokeyboy (Post 12817843)

Between 2010 through 2017, we've got five Pixar sequels... including two of them to what is arguably their worst franchise.

Between 1995 and 2010, we'd had only one. One.

Originally Posted by The Bus (Post 12817891)

Out of the first two movies after <b>Toy Story</b> half were sequels. <i>Half!</i>

Originally Posted by RichC2 (Post 12817863)

Monsters University and Finding Dory were on the docket from Eisner era "Sequel everything! Jafar needs more glasses!"

Originally Posted by Hokeyboy (Post 12817999)

Which Eisner was going to do, with or without Pixar. He made that perfectly clear. He announced Toy Story 3 without even bothering to call Lasseter and Company.

And once Eisner is out and Disney buys Pixar outright? They do them anyhow! Hmm...

Originally Posted by RichC2 (Post 12818043)

That's a fair assumption, still doesn't explain why something as conceptually potent as Monsters U turned out so bad.