DVDizzy Forum

It struggled at the beginning, but $400 million worldwide is not a flop.

The Disneynerd wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 6:50 am

Disney's Divinity wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 5:04 pm Both Inside Out 2 and especially Toy Story 4 have been accused of the studio putting greed before story.

Well, duh! The TS franshise is extremely successful, same with IOs hype still being there many years after their releases, so of course they considered creating sequels for them. But what makes them more special is that they really tinker around and wanna EARN the right to continue their franshises, unlike WDAS who desperately milks their successes with no real afterthought or time to develop. WDAS needs a small mediocre success, and they will gurantee you 3 sequels AND many spinoff Shorts in the next 5 years, while Pixar will will wait even decades to develop a sequel.

Moana 2 could have EASILY made or even surpassed Inside Out 2s Box office numbers, given its brand is way more active with the streaming Services, but it only slowly makes its way to 1Billion, because at the end, story and characters were just an obvious afterthought, unlike IO2 who really DID something with its story that was worthy and gave it all the boost with its numbers. M2 is obviously still successful, but just because of its predecessor, nothing more. The movie is even way more forgettable than Frozen 2.

Regarding Pixars original slate, atleast their movies tried to do unique executions with its designs, tones, and characters, quite even reaching too far with its specificness, especially with Ming or whatever her name was from Red Panda, with her pubity arc, or Luca with the strong italian tone or the forced gay agenda the movie got from viewers, which is something that is faaaar more welcomed than a movie that simplifies everything to a certain point that it has nothing unique and personal to tell and only has nostalgia to be the whole selling point, like more than half of the WDAS slate the last 8 years, with the exception of maybe Raya or Encanto.

So Pixar gets criticzised for sometimes reaching too far with ideas, which is i guess preferred, to something like WDAS who gets criticised for trimming their creative Box smaller and smaller, thinking their audiences are so dumb to quickly eat everything up they present, just because its disney


I thought Elemental was actually quite good! It had many interesting Elements (pun definetly intended yippie) and made the racial metaphora quite unique. I also liked their dynamic, especially since its rare to have a bubbly male character with a more cynical female, when normally those traits are genderswapped.

Also, the movie made atleast 400 Million, which is atleast the double a flop like Wish could only dream of.

I agree Lightyear didnt do anything but they are allowed to have one or two misssteps in their mostly flawless catalogue, unlike WDAS who only got nothing BUT missteps, Strange flop World will take the cake as biggest Animated flop of the 21st century. And Wish symbolizing the clichee and formula the studio embraces the last few years.

Ah and Toy Story 4, while still being a more obvious example of stretching out a completed franshise, was still extremely worthy and managed to give Woody an emotional last arc.

I will change my mind if Woody reunites with them again in 5 which would be the most stupidest thing ever.

In short: Studios approach for sequels
WDAS: MONEY. MERCH. RUSH. =QUICK MONEY (to avoid spoilers and brand recognition)
PIXAR: MONEY. Emotion. Story. Time. =Money (because its good and its brand recognition)

Also Pixars upcoming slate looks wayy more promising, with only like 2 sequels for the next 5 years, while WDAS will love to give us Frozen 3, 4 Zoo2, Moana 3 and Encanto 2

Very well written. I basically agree with all of this. Pixar has made sequels when the story calls for it hence why their sequels are made so many years afterwards. I think only Cars is the exception as that clearly gets made just to sell toys. But it works because I met a little boy just the other day obsessed with Lightning McQueen. He would have been born in the mid-2010s I think so the fact that he's still a huge fan of a film that came out in 2006 means that clearly something is working here for Cars.

I don't like Moana for its anti-princess attitude which offends me but people clearly love it. I agree that it had the people's mandate and could have beaten all box office records if it had been an actual good movie. It clearly wasn't since all the diehard fans are saying they were disappointed and it was just kiddie fare. Also I saw that the three jokes that personally offended me in movie 1 were basically all brought back in movie 2. I haven't seen the sequel but I hear or see that those jokes are all back so I did find it hilarious that my 3 major issues with the movie were exactly what the sequel decided to focus on again. For anyone wondering: 1) Moana's pet is a pig but she eats pork in front of him 2) Moana gets called a princess by Maui and she vehemently claims she is not one like it's some big insult...why would ancient Polynesians even know about European/Asian fairy tale princess tropes??? and 3) Maui making pop culture references like Twitter.

Sorry to vent on Moana 2. The only thing I disagree with you about is Elemental. I found it very generic and lackluster. Even the element names were really boring and not clever and I feel real elements would create an environment way more interesting than just a city with a subway and buildings. That Pixar template has been used too many times now and elements work better in fantastical settings like Avatar the Last Airbender. It also confused me that the fire element is Asian-inspired but elements are not humans. Why would they be racially-identifiable? Fire is in all cultures. Everyone lives on the Earth so is Earth supposed to represent one specific race or people? That was too weird for me. If you're gonna make a fantasy film where the characters aren't humans, they shouldn't have traits that would only work for humans like being Asian or any specific human race.

Kyle wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:45 pm It struggled at the beginning, but $400 million worldwide is not a flop.

Yes, it flopped when it came out but it had good legs and made back its budget and more. So it would be considered a success by Disney's standards. It was their only success in their 100th anniversary year outside of GOTG3. South Korea saved the movie. I was complaining that it didn't make sense to me that the fire is Asian coded but maybe that helped it work in South Korea.

Disney's Divinity wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:48 pm literally nobody thought Moana 2 would do more than Inside Out 2 considering the original Moana didn't sell as well as the first Inside Out; Moana 2 wasn't going to reach Frozen II heights

Its not about how Moana did globally like 10 years ago, its Literally one of the most streamed movies ever on all plattforms combined. Way More than Inside Out and way more than Frozen, and especially Frozen 2. The huge streaming audience it collected the last few years would have easily catapulted it further than just Frozen 2 or Lion King "Live Action" numbers, especially since it broke the record for biggest thanksgiving opening weekend of all time! Then everyone found out the movie was trash and it really slowly lost steam, but really slowly. Its still making numbers, but not the ones it could have made in the longrun.

Disney's Divinity wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:48 pm Elio joins Turning Red, Luca, Soul, and Elemental in the flop box. I don't have high hopes for the beaver movie being successful either, there is nothing unique about that movie's concept or Soul's and Elemental's plot and structure.

Lol "Flop box" the way i giggled. But I gotta agree, Elio will most likely flop and will do Lightyear numbers. Beaver will probably do better, but will barely break even.

Lavendergolden wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:01 pm It also confused me that the fire element is Asian-inspired but elements are not humans. Why would they be racially-identifiable?

Also I dont think Elemental is one of those movies who naturally translate to Merchandising, yeah its colorful but the only thing people will buy after this movie are waterbottles and gasoline.

So it isnt as obviously structured like Disney Princess movies or animals flicks that transate perfectly in the merch world with dolls and Fluffy Plushies. Same goes for Onward and Soul. Soul is definetly not a typical kids flick as it dealt with the afterlife, not as colorful and welcoming as Dia de Los Muertos Coco. Out of all Pixar movies this decade, only Luca or IO2 had huge merch potential, the rest not. In contrast to WDAS who leaned on the Disney Princess type of branding and their one poorly executed attempt to appeal to boys

PatchofBlue wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:38 am What really sticks with me is how we DID have that space of non-franchise films that felt very comparable to Pixar's classics, but critics chose not to rally behind them for a whole bunch of nothing-reasons that I think reveal more about the state of film criticism than the quality of the movies.

Yeah i guess its because Pixar was known to have clever twists as their main plotdevice, like a rat becoming a chefcook, a robot falling in love, old man having the biggest adventure of his life, Monsters being afraid of humans etc. And that was kinda missing in the 2010s, asides from IO, or Coco maybe. Technically switching the roles of humans and animals in Good Dinosaur too, but the execution didnt really provide any further emotional or clever conflict like the others did. Their 2010s movies clearly werent BAD, but having this contrast of prior movies did leave some contrast. But they can never make me hate you Brave.

The Disneynerd wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 7:11 am

Lavendergolden wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:01 pm It also confused me that the fire element is Asian-inspired but elements are not humans. Why would they be racially-identifiable?

Also I dont think Elemental is one of those movies who naturally translate to Merchandising, yeah its colorful but the only thing people will buy after this movie are waterbottles and gasoline.

So it isnt as obviously structured like Disney Princess movies or animals flicks that transate perfectly in the merch world with dolls and Fluffy Plushies. Same goes for Onward and Soul. Soul is definetly not a typical kids flick as it dealt with the afterlife, not as colorful and welcoming as Dia de Los Muertos Coco. Out of all Pixar movies this decade, only Luca or IO2 had huge merch potential, the rest not. In contrast to WDAS who leaned on the Disney Princess type of branding and their one poorly executed attempt to appeal to boys

PatchofBlue wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:38 am What really sticks with me is how we DID have that space of non-franchise films that felt very comparable to Pixar's classics, but critics chose not to rally behind them for a whole bunch of nothing-reasons that I think reveal more about the state of film criticism than the quality of the movies.

Yeah i guess its because Pixar was known to have clever twists as their main plotdevice, like a rat becoming a chefcook, a robot falling in love, old man having the biggest adventure of his life, Monsters being afraid of humans etc. And that was kinda missing in the 2010s, asides from IO, or Coco maybe. Technically switching the roles of humans and animals in Good Dinosaur too, but the execution didnt really provide any further emotional or clever conflict like the others did. Their 2010s movies clearly werent BAD, but having this contrast of prior movies did leave some contrast. But they can never make me hate you Brave.

I think Pixar thought Lightyear would be their big merch movie but that ended up on clearance and is still stuck on shelves years later because nobody is buying. Just like Wish.

I agree Onward and Soul were not big merch sellers either. Do you really think Luca was designed to be a merch seller? I don't remember seeing much for it. I think Inside Out 2 was the one I saw most heavily on shelves and in stores with lots of merch.

I am someone who didn't like Brave at first because it felt not up to par with previous Pixar movies but now I think it's much better. But I also think the reason I like Brave is because ironically enough, it feels more like a princess movie than the recent princess movies, despite being created as an anti-princess film. Mainly because it deals with an arranged marriage plotline. If you look at the classic princess films that the world still loves, they all have arranged marriage plotlines.

• Cinderella is about the prince being forced by the king to marry so the ball is held so he can find a bride.

• Sleeping Beauty is an arranged betrothal between Aurora and Phillip and how both fall in love with other people, not realizing they are each other's intended.

• Little Mermaid has Eric who is being pressured by his kingdom to marry. Then he finds the right girl but is spelled by the witch to marry her instead so he won't break the spell on Ariel and break her contract.

• Beauty and the Beast is Gaston trying to marry Belle and harasses her repeatedly with schemes to get her to agree to marry him.

• Aladdin has Jasmine forced into an arranged marriage before her 16th birthday due to the laws of her kingdom. And how she doesn't want to marry by force.

• Pocahontas has her learning she's arranged to marry Kocoum by her father but she doesn't want to marry him and do what's expected of her.

• Mulan has her being groomed as a bride by the matchmaker but failing to impress by lacking the proper femininity and shaming her family.

Out of the new movies, only Brave and to a lesser extent Frozen deals with arranged marriage as the plotline. Snow White was the only one that didn't deal with it but that's because that plot was in the expanded materials like the prince coming to Snow White's kingdom because he heard the princess there was the fairest in the land. But then he spots a maid in rags who is so beautiful that he doesn't care about the princess anymore, not realizing she is the princess. And the queen thinks the prince has come to marry him and gets jealous when she learns the truth so traps the prince and tries to kill the princess. So marriage has always been integral to princess films until now which is why I'm not a fan.

Lavendergolden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 1:46 pm I agree Onward and Soul were not big merch sellers either. Do you really think Luca was designed to be a merch seller? I don't remember seeing much for it. I think Inside Out 2 was the one I saw most heavily on shelves and in stores with lots of merch.

Nope not really but I said Merch "potential", u know, those toys u dunk in water and they change colors? Make a few thousand dolls of "Luca and Alberto: Watermagic" "sprinkle some water on Alberto, and WOW he turned into a Seamonster Mom" "Cute sweetie!" So those water toys translate pretty well with the Luca brand. And they could do some cute pasta merch too!

Lavendergolden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 1:46 pm If you look at the classic princess films that the world still loves, they all have arranged marriage plotlines.

Its almost as if they wanted to romantizise arranged marriages! Atleast the princes sybolize the escape of horrible lifestyle for them ladies! So they win anyway.

The one arranged marriage plotline that always stood out to me was the Queen Charlotte one, its the pinnacle of Bridgerton stories for me. At first, he seemed extremely nice and perfect, only to find out he had his ticks but they found some halfway to Deal with that. The ending is so bittersweet and most here know im a sucker for bittersweet endings so obviously im in love with that Show. Bridgerton S3 was trash tho. So much buildup and revelation with no payoff or Consequences at all.
Yes I love talking about Bridgerton in a Disney forum!

The Disneynerd wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 5:20 am

Lavendergolden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 1:46 pm I agree Onward and Soul were not big merch sellers either. Do you really think Luca was designed to be a merch seller? I don't remember seeing much for it. I think Inside Out 2 was the one I saw most heavily on shelves and in stores with lots of merch.

Nope not really but I said Merch "potential", u know, those toys u dunk in water and they change colors? Make a few thousand dolls of "Luca and Alberto: Watermagic" "sprinkle some water on Alberto, and WOW he turned into a Seamonster Mom" "Cute sweetie!" So those water toys translate pretty well with the Luca brand. And they could do some cute pasta merch too!

Lavendergolden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 1:46 pm If you look at the classic princess films that the world still loves, they all have arranged marriage plotlines.

Its almost as if they wanted to romantizise arranged marriages! Atleast the princes sybolize the escape of horrible lifestyle for them ladies! So they win anyway.

The one arranged marriage plotline that always stood out to me was the Queen Charlotte one, its the pinnacle of Bridgerton stories for me. At first, he seemed extremely nice and perfect, only to find out he had his ticks but they found some halfway to Deal with that. The ending is so bittersweet and most here know im a sucker for bittersweet endings so obviously im in love with that Show. Bridgerton S3 was trash tho. So much buildup and revelation with no payoff or Consequences at all.
Yes I love talking about Bridgerton in a Disney forum!

That makes sense about Luca. I know Disney makes merch for Mermaid and Nemo a lot so it makes sense they could do more with Luca. Especially since water toys and bath toys are really in. Also that's such a smart idea for pasta merch. They could have had tie-ins with pasta boxes and maybe also made cutlery and bowl designs that are Luca-themed. Like a whole cookery tie-in line.

I think the Disney movies don't romanticize arranged marriage because none of the princesses end up with their arranged partners. The arranged partners are always villains or clearly incompatible. Like Kocoum isn't a bad guy (although the deleted scenes planned on making him more like Gaston) but it's clear he and Pocahontas aren't in love and shouldn't be together. Even though he was her real life husband I think. The only arranged marriage that ends up together is Aurora and Phillip and even they only fall in love not knowing they're each other's intended and actively fight against the arranged marriage. I know Walt restructured Sleeping Beauty because he wanted Aurora and Phillip to know each other and fall in love rather than just meet at the end during the kiss.

Even non-Disney princess films heavily hinged on the arranged marriage storyline, to show how important a princess trope it is. Thumbelina has her being courted by the frog and mole and she even agrees to marry the mole when she's in despair over her prince being dead. Swan Princess really highlights the betrothal and how they both hate each other until they fall in love. This is the only other pro-arranged marriage example I can think of even though it seems they both fall in love with each other in spite of arranged marriage, rather than because of it. Anastasia even focuses on this because once Dimitri learns Anya is really Anastasia, he knows they have no future together because princesses don't marry kitchen boys. It's maybe the most mature take on this subject since there's no one fighting to keep the lovers apart here because of class differences like in Aladdin. Noble society won't accept their relationship but Anya's grandmother makes very clear that she won't hold Anya back from leaving this life so she can pursue one with Dimitri. If they don't like the rules of the game, they can just stop playing which is what Anya does.

Actually the original Beauty and the Beast fairy tale was an attempt to make arranged marriage seem nicer so what you said does apply to that! The author knew that many young women were getting stuck married to older or meaner men so she wrote this story to encourage them to make the best of their situations so they can improve their beast husbands and turn them into princes.

I've never seen Bridgerton so thanks for all that info. It makes sense that arranged marriage would be a major focal point of that show, especially with the royal character. I think Bridgerton was inspired by the Jane Austen books right? That time period and society. I didn't know the latest season was considered bad though. I heard the spinoff show about a young Charlotte was just okay.

Lavendergolden wrote:Like Kocoum isn't a bad guy (although the deleted scenes planned on making him more like Gaston) but it's clear he and Pocahontas aren't in love and shouldn't be together. Even though he was her real life husband I think.

In real life, Pocahontas was married to John Rolfe.

blackcauldron85 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 8:36 am

Lavendergolden wrote:Like Kocoum isn't a bad guy (although the deleted scenes planned on making him more like Gaston) but it's clear he and Pocahontas aren't in love and shouldn't be together. Even though he was her real life husband I think.

In real life, Pocahontas was married to John Rolfe.

He was her second husband. Her first husband was Kocoum. They were already married when she was kidnapped by the English to blackmail her father. That marriage was basically dissolved when she was married to John Rolfe instead, which some people say was by choice to keep peace between the two people and others say was by force. It's also rumored that her son wasn't really fathered by John Rolfe as she may have been repeatedly raped by multiple men while in captivity. The marriage to John Rolfe was partially to cover that up so her people wouldn't know what was done to her. But she did meet her brother-in-law, Uttamatomakkin, and I think her sister while in captivity so I think she did tell them what was done to her and that she didn't know who the father of her child was.

Even as I typed that, I was questioning you not knowing that, because I figured you must have, and felt silly, so I didn't mean to insult your intelligence.

I feel like I must have read about her life before but I had not remembered, so thank you.

Wikipedia wrote:Mattaponi tradition holds that Pocahontas' first husband was Kocoum, brother of the Patawomeck weroance Japazaws, and that Kocoum was killed by the colonists after his wife's capture in 1613. Today's Patawomecks believe that Pocahontas and Kocoum had a daughter named Ka-Okee who was raised by the Patawomecks after her father's death and her mother's abduction.

...the only mention of a "Kocoum" in any English document is a brief statement written about 1616 by William Strachey that Pocahontas had been living married to a "private captaine called Kocoum" for two years. Pocahontas married John Rolfe in 1614, and no other records even hint at any previous husband, so some have suggested that Strachey was mistakenly referring to Rolfe himself, with the reference being later misunderstood as one of Powhatan's officers.

Lavendergolden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:21 pm

blackcauldron85 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 8:36 am

In real life, Pocahontas was married to John Rolfe.

He was her second husband. Her first husband was Kocoum. They were already married when she was kidnapped by the English to blackmail her father. That marriage was basically dissolved when she was married to John Rolfe instead, which some people say was by choice to keep peace between the two people and others say was by force. It's also rumored that her son wasn't really fathered by John Rolfe as she may have been repeatedly raped by multiple men while in captivity. The marriage to John Rolfe was partially to cover that up so her people wouldn't know what was done to her. But she did meet her brother-in-law, Uttamatomakkin, and I think her sister while in captivity so I think she did tell them what was done to her and that she didn't know who the father of her child was.

There's no enough information about Pocahontas to say that this version is clear. Everything could be real but we don't have enough prooves to affirm that.
The people that say that are Narive American people who affirm that they are descendants of Pocahonta's first son but nobody really knows if that's true or not. The only accurate thing that we can affirm is that she get married with Rolfe back in 1614.
This website has lot of information about her:
https://www.pocahontaslives.com/timeline.html

Thumper_93 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 4:00 am
There's no enough information about Pocahontas to say that this version is clear. Everything could be real but we don't have enough prooves to affirm that.
The people that say that are Narive American people who affirm that they are descendants of Pocahonta's first son but nobody really knows if that's true or not. The only accurate thing that we can affirm is that she get married with Rolfe back in 1614.
This website has lot of information about her:
https://www.pocahontaslives.com/timeline.html

Thank you, Thumper! That's a very neat website. I've been going down the rabbit trail, and it's interesting that certain aspects of Pocahontas' life are not necessarily known to be fact or not.

blackcauldron85 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:41 am

Thumper_93 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 4:00 am
There's no enough information about Pocahontas to say that this version is clear. Everything could be real but we don't have enough prooves to affirm that.
The people that say that are Narive American people who affirm that they are descendants of Pocahonta's first son but nobody really knows if that's true or not. The only accurate thing that we can affirm is that she get married with Rolfe back in 1614.
This website has lot of information about her:
https://www.pocahontaslives.com/timeline.html

Thank you, Thumper! That's a very neat website. I've been going down the rabbit trail, and it's interesting that certain aspects of Pocahontas' life are not necessarily known to be fact or not.

This website is amazing. There is a section where the creator talks about the Disney film. Another thing that I really like about the site is that you can see his reviews from historical books about Pocahontas and her people.

blackcauldron85 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:07 am Even as I typed that, I was questioning you not knowing that, because I figured you must have, and felt silly, so I didn't mean to insult your intelligence.

I feel like I must have read about her life before but I had not remembered, so thank you.

Wikipedia wrote:Mattaponi tradition holds that Pocahontas' first husband was Kocoum, brother of the Patawomeck weroance Japazaws, and that Kocoum was killed by the colonists after his wife's capture in 1613. Today's Patawomecks believe that Pocahontas and Kocoum had a daughter named Ka-Okee who was raised by the Patawomecks after her father's death and her mother's abduction.

...the only mention of a "Kocoum" in any English document is a brief statement written about 1616 by William Strachey that Pocahontas had been living married to a "private captaine called Kocoum" for two years. Pocahontas married John Rolfe in 1614, and no other records even hint at any previous husband, so some have suggested that Strachey was mistakenly referring to Rolfe himself, with the reference being later misunderstood as one of Powhatan's officers.

No need to apologize. It's not something well known and because so much of Pocahontas' life is shrouded in mystery, it's hard to say what was real and what wasn't because of the lack of historical documents.

Thumper_93 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 4:00 am

Lavendergolden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:21 pm

He was her second husband. Her first husband was Kocoum. They were already married when she was kidnapped by the English to blackmail her father. That marriage was basically dissolved when she was married to John Rolfe instead, which some people say was by choice to keep peace between the two people and others say was by force. It's also rumored that her son wasn't really fathered by John Rolfe as she may have been repeatedly raped by multiple men while in captivity. The marriage to John Rolfe was partially to cover that up so her people wouldn't know what was done to her. But she did meet her brother-in-law, Uttamatomakkin, and I think her sister while in captivity so I think she did tell them what was done to her and that she didn't know who the father of her child was.

There's no enough information about Pocahontas to say that this version is clear. Everything could be real but we don't have enough prooves to affirm that.
The people that say that are Narive American people who affirm that they are descendants of Pocahonta's first son but nobody really knows if that's true or not. The only accurate thing that we can affirm is that she get married with Rolfe back in 1614.
This website has lot of information about her:
https://www.pocahontaslives.com/timeline.html

Yes, that's true that there are so many versions of Pocahontas' life story out there that we don't know exactly what is true or not. Although we mostly think Pocahontas and John Smith didn't have a romantic relationship, I think I read that some Indian tribes actually do believe there was a romance. And if she was really raped and didn't know the father of her child also varies from tribe to tribe so we simply don't know 100% what really happened.

Thank you for the website. It was an interesting read and has so many links that you can go on reading for days. The only part I disagreed with is the claim that Pocahontas is the least popular DP movie just because it has a rotten Tomatoes score. I don't think audiences judge films solely based on rotten tomatoes score, especially when this movie is 30 years old now. I posted elsewhere that Pocahontas is in the top 10 best selling VHS tapes of all time. A movie cannot be unpopular if it sold that well. Nobody doubts Toy Story's popularity and Pocahontas was just below Toy Story and sold better than Toy Story 2. It sold more VHS tapes than Cinderella which is at the bottom of the top 10. It beat The Little Mermaid, Tarzan, etc. none of which made the top 10. And the survey I read posted here said that Pocahontas is one of the most watched DP movies, just below Frozen and Mermaid but above Tangled and Brave.

Q: Compared to pre-1990s animated shows and movies, today’s kids’ shows feel so fast-paced. How will that play out in Toy Story 5?

Pete Docter: If you go back and look at Bambi — I’m picking an extreme that’s kind of intentionally slow because it is about nature and watching the changes seasons and things — I think films have definitely sped up. Even Toy Story one to Toy Story 4, the level of visual sophistication, including the pacing, we’re just trying to keep in touch with the rhythms of the world and it’s definitely faster. So I will say Toy Story 5, I think [writer and director] Andrew’s done a really great job of letting moments breathe in unexpected ways. Things that you’re like, wait, is this a Toy Story movie? Just some of his choices, which I think we need at this point. We’ve had four of ’em already. We got to keep people surprised, so it’s going to be fun.

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifes ... 236170265/

Tim Allen says the 5th film will focus on Jessie.

Tim Allen wrote:On the horizon for Allen is also “Toy Story 5,” which is scheduled for a June 19, 2026 release and has already begun production. Allen wasn’t going to give any spoilers about the film, but he did give a very general plot outline. “I can tell you that it’s a lot about Jessie,” he said. “Tom [Hanks] and I do — Woody and I — do realign. And there’s an unbelievable opening scene with Buzz Lightyears. I can give you that, but I can’t give you much more.”

Source: https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/ti ... view-show/

Tim Allen wrote:I’ve already begun, I’m in the third act now. It’s remarkable what they’ve done… with Pixar they didn’t say I couldn’t say anything but… I wish I could… There’s a lot of real intrigue with Buzz. Jessie’s got a big trouble, she needs help, so it’s a really cool thing.

Source: https://collider.com/toy-story-5-plot-d ... tim-allen/

Tim Allen wrote:I just finished another five hour session before I flew in for this. So, it's a story about Jessie. It's very, very clever. I was reticent, and some detractors asked if we needed another one after the whole Toy Story 4 'to infinity and beyond' thing with Buzz and Woody saying goodbye to each other which tore us up, but we're back for a good reason now, and it is very, very clever.

Source: https://collider.com/toy-story-5-tim-al ... explained/

Sotiris wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 3:11 pm

Q: Compared to pre-1990s animated shows and movies, today’s kids’ shows feel so fast-paced. How will that play out in Toy Story 5?

Pete Docter: If you go back and look at Bambi — I’m picking an extreme that’s kind of intentionally slow because it is about nature and watching the changes seasons and things — I think films have definitely sped up. Even Toy Story one to Toy Story 4, the level of visual sophistication, including the pacing, we’re just trying to keep in touch with the rhythms of the world and it’s definitely faster. So I will say Toy Story 5, I think [writer and director] Andrew’s done a really great job of letting moments breathe in unexpected ways. Things that you’re like, wait, is this a Toy Story movie? Just some of his choices, which I think we need at this point. We’ve had four of ’em already. We got to keep people surprised, so it’s going to be fun.

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifes ... 236170265/

Ok, since TS5 is about technology as a theme I can see some points . . . however
This does not sound promising for this company's motivation. By the recent outputs from this company and their disjointed pacing I feel a decline in an all audience experience. The fast paced society in general isn't making people any smarter. I feel it makes room for more impatience & irritability at best. Why don't they make movies with the same pacing as Tangled anymore? Bambi is extreme, but Tangled's pacing is fine for todays kids; and doesn't feel like a TikTok edited movie like Disney's recent outputs.

I especially don't think they know what they are talking about at this comment below
"We’re just trying to keep in touch with the rhythms of the world"

Without questioning if the rhythm is flawed. How about make a clever satire of ( 2020s culture of misinformation )
disguised as flashy news.

Sotiris wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 1:54 amTim Allen says the 5th film will focus on Jessie.

I can understand why they make Jessie the main one, since she had the most attachment issues and with Kids now focusing on Electronics, Jessies paranoia of abandonment comes all back again, i guess she has to learn the same lesson all over again... sighs

'Toy Story' Carl Weathers' Fan-Favorite Character Recast With Ernie Hudson
https://www.tmz.com/2025/04/21/ernie-hu ... tory-role/

‘Toy Story 5’ Lands Conan O’Brien as Voice of New Character
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 236222108/

The studio announced Monday that Conan O’Brien has been added to the film’s voice cast as Smarty Pants, a character that is new to the animation franchise. Andrew Stanton is directing Toy Story 5 alongside co-director McKenna Harris, while Jessica Choi produces the film.

I can already see it, Smartypants is the "New" Digital toy ala Subway Surfurs, Roblox or whatever Digital platform with a playable character for toddlers (just remembered Ralph 2 exists ). Those could only interact whenever the screen is still unlocked when humans leave the scene...unlikely scenario: IDEA RETRACTED
EDIT: Although the toys can tap the screen whenver humans are out of sight: IDEA REINSERTED