Toy Story 3

[Pasta67]

I want a toy story 3 only if
-The voice cast returns

Well, Jim Varney passed away in 2000 and John Ratzenberger already said that if a Toy Story sequel was made without PIXAR, he wouldn't even consider returning. I think some of the other cast members will think this as well.

[PixarFan]

^ Don't forget Pixar's Joe Ranft, the voice of Wheezy, who passed away last year.

[stevecory]

I think the main ones we need to come back are Tim Allen and Tom Hanks. The others can be substituted for (for the most part, anyway), but Tim/Tom have such unique voices.

[Evil Genie Jafar]

Several things:

1. There's NO NEED for another TS movie, let alone 2. If Pixar has shown something with every movie (with the exception of TS2) is that they're creatve enough as to come out wth new ideas everytime.

Besides, that plot is TS2 again as some of you have said. And I'm not surprised, Disney did the same with The Little Mermaid 2.

2. Timon/Pumbaa Fan, I'm sorry but just because SHREK will have part 3 and 4 as well doesn't mean Disney has to do the same. Dreamworks has shown they lack a LOT creativity while Pixar doesn't.

3. Aside from the main characters, there's no need to keep all the original actors. I mean, that would be great, but Disney has shown for the most part that they can come with actors that can mimic others' voices very well.

[Pasta67]

I think the main ones we need to come back are Tim Allen and Tom Hanks. The others can be substituted for (for the most part, anyway), but Tim/Tom have such unique voices.

Aside from the main characters, there's no need to keep all the original actors. I mean, that would be great, but Disney has shown for the most part that they can come with actors that can mimic others' voices very well.

Could not disagree with you guys more. One thing is special about the actors/actresses that play the cast now: they ARE the character. When you replace a voice actor, then it just becomes a voice to pass on. There's nothing like the original; I don't think voice actors should be thought of as expendable when they're fully capable of still doing a character.

[Isidour]

I think the main ones we need to come back are Tim Allen and Tom Hanks. The others can be substituted for (for the most part, anyway), but Tim/Tom have such unique voices.

Aside from the main characters, there's no need to keep all the original actors. I mean, that would be great, but Disney has shown for the most part that they can come with actors that can mimic others' voices very well.

Could not disagree with you guys more. One thing is special about the actors/actresses that play the cast now: they ARE the character. When you replace a voice actor, then it just becomes a voice to pass on. There's nothing like the original; I don't think voice actors should be thought of as expendable when they're fully capable of still doing a character.

AMEN!

besides,I think that a serious plot like Andy getting too old for the toys would be better than a upside-down TS2 story

[Evil Genie Jafar]

I'm not saying that they should replace them. Not at all by any means. I mean if they're alive they must get them.

But what are you going to do if they have died or they just don't want to?

[Isidour]

respecting their work would be nice

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

2. Timon/Pumbaa Fan, I'm sorry but just because SHREK will have part 3 and 4 as well doesn't mean Disney has to do the same. Dreamworks has shown they lack a LOT creativity while Pixar doesn't.

Evil Genie Jafar my Shrek comment was more of a joke instead of an actual reason. Since the world of motion pictures are filled with trilogies, I think it would be cool if there was at least 1 great animated trilogy, and since the Shrek films are films that are probably going to get outdated 10 years from now, all I was saying was it would be cool if Disney had an animated trilogy of it's own, that's all.

I do agree that the story about Buzz going back to Taiwan is a lame one, but if Pixar DID come back to Disney I will have all trust and welcome a 3rd film. But I agree with Pasta that a 4th would be TOO much, 3 is enough!

Now as for the cast, I'm sure if Pixar came back with Disney, all the cast will be willing to return, except for Jim Varney and Joe Ranft. I'm sure they can find someone to do great immatations of those voices some where. Brad Garret would be PERFECT for Slinky Dog IMO!

[2099net]

2. Timon/Pumbaa Fan, I'm sorry but just because SHREK will have part 3 and 4 as well doesn't mean Disney has to do the same. Dreamworks has shown they lack a LOT creativity while Pixar doesn't.

Well, I'm not fan of Dreamworks, but I dispute this claim. So far Dreamworks animation has done:

Antz (a surprisingly adult social satire NOT A BUG'S LIFE RIP-OFF)
The Prince of Egypt (Biblical epic)
The Road to El Dorado (With two rogues as the main characters)
Shrek & Shrek 2 (Fairytale parodies)
Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron (Story of a horse)
Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (Old fashioned Adventure)
Shark Tale (Godfather/Goodfella's spoof - NOT A NEMO RIP OFF)
Madagascar (Animals in a 'fish out of water' story)
Over the Hedge (Wild Animals surviving in suberbia)

And with Aardman
Chicken Run (World War II Prison Camp Spoof, with Chickens)
W&G: Curse of the Were-Rabbit (an old-school horror movie spoof)

Compare that with Pixar:

Toy Story (Buddy rescue movie)
A Bug's Life (reimagining of 7 Samurai)
Toy Story 2 (Buddy rescue movie)
Monsters, Inc (A Rescue Movie, with Buddies)
Finding Nemo (A Rescue Movie, with Buddies)
The Incredibles (reimagining of The Fantastic Four)
Cars (???)

I know which company I think is the most creative, even if their ideas don't always reach their full potential.

[2099net]

respecting their work would be nice

Since when has anyone in the entertainment industry ever respected others work?

Not even Walt did - he had no qualms about replacing the voice of Goofy when when Pinto Colvig was signed to another studio, and even he let somebody else voice Mickey Mouse. Henson too have replaced Kermit's voice (through neccesity) and Miss Piggy's voice (on the occasions when Frank Oz was too busy to return) for many years.

You all make out modern Disney is evil, and going against Walt's principles, when Walt himself replaced voice artists.

[Evil Genie Jafar]

2099net:

I was thinking of CGI only... but if you want to put it in that perspective.

ANTZ: yeah, I'm sure it didn't have ANYHTING to do with A Bug's Life

The Prince of Egypt: don't remember it well. But I'll give you that it is a great movie.

The Road to El Dorado: Again, something that had nothing to do wth The Emperor's New Groove

Shrek and Shrek 2: ther big hits (based in books I believe? Not that it has something wrong with that (Disney anyone?) but Pixar ones are all original stories; with the possible exception of ABL.

Spirit: Yes, this one is another truly Dreamworks

Sinbad: Original as well, but I found it very so so.

Shark Tale: Yeah....another one that is not BY ANY MEANS a rip-off of Finding Nemo

Madagascar: Another original one... but very so so too.


I don't have anything against Dreamworks, I have some of their movies... but you can't truly come here with a straight face and say that most of their movies aren't direct copies of Pixar or Disney ones.


Pixar: (Just to mention some)


A Bug's Life: you seem to forget the idea that: "even one person can make a difference"

Finding Nemo: wasn't it supposed to be about "overcoming all obstacles besides of all possible limitations?"

The Incredibles: EXCUSE ME?!!! Sorry but with this one you really reached the bottom. A reimagining of The Fantastic Four? I believe this one had to do with family problems and how to fit in, all wrapped in a super hero movie.

I think you need to watch that one again. Since you obviously overlooked everything. Did you get the whole concept of their superpowers?

Mr. Incredible: Super strenght... because it repesented that he was the head of the family and later on how he was forced to restrain himself in a very restraining work. Why did you think he was so huge for his "office" and car?

Mrs. Incredible: Elasticity. Because as shown in the dinner scene, she's supposed to stretch herself in order to keep her family in order.

Violet: Invicibility and Force Fields Creation; because of how shy she was and how she wanted to protect herself from everything.

Dash: Super speed; the typical boy at that age. He wanted to show off and be the center of attraction.

even Jack Jack: why he could turn into monsters? Literally because babies can be one. With their behavior.

[2099net]

2099net:

I was thinking of CGI only... but if you want to put it in that perspective.



ANTZ: yeah, I'm sure it didn't have ANYHTING to do with A Bug's Life

It may or not of had anything to do with a Bug's Life, but it is argubly the better film, it certainly has the better script. It's a shame the designs are so ugly, as it tends to turn people off the film (and the superb set-design). Given how long the lead time must have been for the film, I doubt it did have anything to so with A Bug's Life. You may as well say Vanguard's Valiant was a rip-off of Chicken Run. Given the amount of turn-around needed I can't see how they could be that related.

The Prince of Egypt: don't remember it well. But I'll give you that it is a great movie.

The Road to El Dorado: Again, something that had nothing to do wth The Emperor's New Groove

Well, it would of had more similarities to Empire of the Sun which became TENG, but I really can't see any connection between TENG and RtED. Again, you're ignoring the main feature of the film - that two petty criminals and con-men were the main characters of the film. And if anything, Disney's Treasure Planet is a copy of Road to El Dorado (the similarities are stunning). How come that doesn't get accused of copying?

Shrek and Shrek 2: ther big hits (based in books I believe? Not that it has something wrong with that (Disney anyone?) but Pixar ones are all original stories.

I understand the finished films have next to nothing in common with the book. As for Pixar doing original stories... I'll get to that later.

Spirit: Yes, this one is another truly Dreamworks

Sinbad: Original as well, but I found it very so so.

Shark Tale: Yeah....another one that is not BY ANY MEANS a rip-off of Finding Nemo

I don't think it is. Why would Dreamworks even WANT to be compared to what was the greatest box-office animation hit of all time? They would just be setting themselves up for a fall.

Madagascar: Another original one... but very so so too.

I don't have anything against Dreamworks, I have some of their movies... but you can't truly come here with a straight face and say that most of their movies aren't direct copies of Pixar or Disney ones.


Pixar: (Just to mention some)


A Bug's Life: you seem to forget the idea that: "even one person can make a difference"

And you forget it's just a mixture of The Grasshopper and the Ants and The Seven Samurai. It was hardly an original story, and others have done the versions before, even comdey ones (Three Amigos anyone?). And wasn't the message "United we are stronger?"

Finding Nemo: wasn't it supposed to be about "overcoming all obstacles besides of all possible limitations?"

The Incredibles: I believe this one had to do with family problems and how to fit in, all wrapped in a super hero movie.

Well, that's basically Marvel's Fantastic Four comic summed up as well. Believe me, while it was done well, there was nothing earthshatteringly original in concept or execution in The Incredibles. Some of it was rehashing stuff Stan Lee did in the early 60s.

[StitchExp626]

I think that the Toy Story seuels, at least one of them anyway, should provide us with a follow up to Stinky Pete the Prospector. What does he learn from the little girl and the Barbie and the threat of a makeover? Does he learn to enjoy being played with or does he crave the safety of his mint condition box. If the latter, does he attempt to get back to Al's Toy Barn, does Barbie go with him as his new friend? How does Al respond to having only one of the Roundup gang back, does he put Prospector back in his box as a collectable or does he throw out the now non mint Prospector into the garbage, (similar to Woodys nightmare). If this is the case does he attempt to find Woody and Jessie and Bullseye. Knowing only Andy's room as a clue. What about the deluded Buzz and his father Zurg, maybe they can help find Andy's room. After many adventures they arrive there and have a Woodys Roundup gang reunion, with no hard feelings for anyone. This could be a sequel with the original cast maybe just having a small section of screen time.

What do you think?

Stitch

[Evil Genie Jafar]

2099 net:


Silly me, it was stupid of me to think that Dreamworks was trying to copy Pixar or Disney just because by mere coincidence, it just so happened that they made a movie using a same setting the same exact year that Disney or Pixar released ther movie.

And it was just another coincidence that Dreamworks made a CGI toy story movie after Pixar made Toy Story (Small Soldiers).?Oops, yeah your're right. They're complete opposites as SS is a mix of CGI and live action...


Makes you wonder that the concept behind ANTZ came to be because an employee that was currently working with Pixar and ABL quit his job and then was hired by Dreamworks and told them what Pixar had in mind.

PS

I'm not going to say anyhting else becuase this post is not for that and probably there are people out there that would say something anyway.

[2099net]

2099 net:

And it was just another coincidence that Dreamworks made a CGI toy story movie after Pixar made Toy Story (Small Soldiers).?Oops, yeah your're right. They're complete opposites as SS is a mix of CGI and live action...

I don't see how anyone can compate Small Soldiers to Toy Story. The films are totally different in every respect. I don't know about you, but if I was a studio head eager to get some of "Pixar's Pie" I wouldn't make a pseudo horror film in the traditions of Gremlins (and even hire the same director) if I wanted to appeal to the family audience who like Toy Story's whimsey and moral message. Nor would I fill it with satire, which is quite plainly anti-corporate (and therefore implicitly anti-American). There's just no logic to it.

People are quick to jump on the anti-Dreamworks bandwagon, but how come nobody is critisising Disney for making The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, an obvious reaction to the success of Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings films.

Plus didn't The Great Mouse Detective come out the a year after Young Sherlock? And John Lasseter worked on the effects for Young Sherlock! I bet he took the idea over to Disney and voila! The Great Mouse Detective! And the Rescuers Down Under was released right in the middle of the Crocodile Dundee craze! Hercules came out just after the TV movies which eventually launced the Hercules: The Legendary Journeys series, while in the few year before Tarzan, there was Tarzan The Epic Adventures on TV and Tarzan and the Lost City film.

The only reason people are seeing these "connections" between Disney and Dreamworks, is because they happen to be higher profile films, plus, for some reason people seem to want Dreamworks to be just copying, and not even looking at the vast differences with each film.

[creid]

I am not trying to just to rag on Dreamworks and lay holiest praise Pixar but the film qualities of Pixars has been excellent. I gave all Pixar, except A Bug's Life, at least a imdb score of 8 or above. (I gave the reimaging of the 7 Samurai a 7. Of course the 7 Samurai has been reimaged A LOT.) Of the Dreamworks film, the only movie I gave 8 or higher is Shrek (10). Otherwise I gave Madagascar and Antz a 7 and Shrek 2 a high 6.

Personally, I am hoping against any more Toy Story or any of the Pixar movies because the plot of 3 as everyone has suggested is 2 in reverse. I would hope if a sequel is made the right voices are used (Tom, Tim, Don & John, etc.) and Pixar is part of it. Otherwise I expect to ignore any other sequels. (A Bug's Life - This time we rip off Yojimbo!!)

CR

[Isidour]

respecting their work would be nice

Since when has anyone in the entertainment industry ever respected others work?

I know, but it would be nice that someone for once make the diference

[ichabod]

Well it looks as though the first change since the Pixar Purchase has been made.

Via Animated News comes this:

As the subject line read, John Lasseter and Ed Catmill announced to Feature Animation employees today that the "Toy Story 3" production will end effectively today. They said that sequels should only be made if there is a really great story that demands it, and should be the domain of those who created the original film.

In other words, if Pixar wants to make a sequel to its films, it will. If Disney Feature wants to make a sequel to its film, it will. But the two will not cross.

They said they were interested in the talent assembled for Circle 7, and would try to accomodate that talent--they were sort of vague. But they said they held no prejudice at all towards those who were at Circle 7, and wanted to find a way to use their talents.

Now I'm no expert at reading between the lines, but i think "They said that sequels should only be made if there is a really great story that demands it, and should be the domain of those who created the original film." really means "A big part of the purchase deal was that TS3 would be cancelled".

I for one am actually quite sad, Toy Story 3 sounded like it had a good script and seemed to be in good hands with Circle 7.

Also i wasn't one of those people who said "Pixar made Toy Story so only Pixar has the right to make a sequel". Since Pixar's only part with Toy Story was the animation, Disney have created the characters and done the script had more right the Pixar to create a sequel IMO.

Anyway, thoughts?

[2099net]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/valle ... ons-valley

Not quite:

"We feel very strongly that if the sequels are going to be made, we want the people who were involved in the original films involved in the sequels," Jobs said.

and

On Wednesday, Disney Studios Chairman Dick Cook said, "All of the sequels to Pixar movies will be made by Pixar. We are clearly going to look at all of the talent that has been assembled and figure out where we go from here."

There will be a Toy Story 3, trust me. All that happened is the current in-development production has been abandoned. It isn't really news, Hollywood reworks scripts all the time (look at how long it took to make Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy for example).

But apparently Jobs' snide "Pixar doesn't do sequels" comment doesn't hold true anymore, now that the rules have changed, namely:

Eisner insisted on standing by the letter of Disney's contract stipulating that sequels did not count toward the films Pixar owed the studio. Jobs argued that they should count.