Toy Story 3

[yoda_four]

I just thought:

Why in the Hell would Andy send Buzz back to the company he was built at? I know I don't return DVDs just because the back cover's ripped a little, it adds character and originality. It's not like the company can come over to every Bob and Jane's house to steal their Buzzs and then quietly return new ones before they wake up.

Another stupid decision on Disney's part. Hope Iger does something as soon as he's in office....

[Eeyore]

I have a feeling that much like Terminator and the Godfather, Toy Story will end up being a pair of films, and not a trilogy.

[MickeyMousePal]

Well, Toy Story 3 doesn't sound that great but I hope that Pixar could team up with Disney again.

[shr_fan]

I know I'm in a minority here, but I think it sounds great. But if it's not, I'll just stick with the first 2. That's the good thing, no matter what they do to the 3rd movie, the 1st and 2nd ones will still be awsome!

[Prince Adam]

Personally, I don't think the premise is that bad (perhaps, like it said, the toy is recalled for some reason and so Andy's MOM sends it back-too dangerous for Molly or something), and what's the big deal about the 3rd one centered around Buzz? The 2nd one was centered around Woody...and you have to admit, Buzz is more appealing in terms of merchandise than Woody.

[ohmahaaha]

Actually I think the story idea sounds kind of funny - not too far fetched from what has already happened to the main characters in the first 2 movies. We probably need to banish our pre-conceived notions of what a non-Pixar Toy Story movie would be, number one; and number two, now that there has been a change at the top, maybe Pixar will be back in the picture.

Bottom line: if the story is good it will be great.

[Disney-Fan]

Prince Adam and ohmahaaha, you raise a good points, but I too am quite frightened of the thought of this sequel happening. I have two reasons to back up my concerns:

1) The wrong motive for a sequel. Disney, as of today, is only interested in doing this to p*ss Pixar off and make a few more bucks out of loveable, established characters. Now, if Disney were to make this because they want to advance the story, make it funnier, more ground breaking and better than the previous ones, I'd give this feature a fair chance.

2) Just look at Disney's sequel history with animation. It isn't exactly glamerous or exciting. People have been complaining about poor quality of story, with the exception being in Lion King 1.5/II. Now, how do you expect people to give this one a fair chance if all they've done in the past is ruin the previous titles with bad animation, barely medicore storylines, and cheap attempts in naming something a sequel (Hmm, Cinderella II or Tarzan and Jane anyone?).

Just my 2 cents...

[2099net]

Prince Adam and ohmahaaha, you raise a good points, but I too am quite frightened of the thought of this sequel happening. I have two reasons to back up my concerns:

1) The wrong motive for a sequel. Disney, as of today, is only interested in doing this to p*ss Pixar off and make a few more bucks out of loveable, established characters. Now, if Disney were to make this because they want to advance the story, make it funnier, more ground breaking and better than the previous ones, I'd give this feature a fair chance.

I don't think that they're doing it to annoy Pixar. Like the article mentions, they have to set themselves up for a post-Pixar era. But yes, they are doing it for money. It's what companies do. Its no different than other companies shoddy treatment of their own lovable, established characters. (Live action Scooby Doo anyone? How about Catwoman, Loonatics or Van Helsing?)

Talking of "pi**ing off" Pixar, who come nobody seems to mind Jobs' constant media attempts to "pi** off" Disney? Everybody always paints Jobs as the victim, but its Jobs who is constantly attacking Disney. Jobs who is constantly blaming others for his own decisions (It's not Eisner, but the business terms to the negotiation Jobs objects too, terms presumably run past and approved by the board at some stage). All Jobs is doing is manipulating the media, taking advantage of internal and external disquiet with Eisner's stewardship, as a smokescreen to deflect any blame from himself for the non-renewal. And that, to me, indicates a more devious and dangerous business mind than Eisners.

2) Just look at Disney's sequel history with animation. It isn't exactly glamerous or exciting. People have been complaining about poor quality of story, with the exception being in Lion King 1.5/II. Now, how do you expect people to give this one a fair chance if all they've done in the past is ruin the previous titles with bad animation, barely medicore storylines, and cheap attempts in naming something a sequel (Hmm, Cinderella II or Tarzan and Jane anyone?).

Just my 2 cents...

Well, I didn't particularly like The Lion King 1.5, where as I thought Return to Never Land was a much better film, story and script than the original Peter Pan. Other people raves over the Aladdin sequels (especially King of Thieves) but they just leave me cold. We're all different, and we all have different likes and dislikes.

Even Cinderella II wasn't as bad as people made out. Let's face it, had it been an 80's cartoon series, people would have welcomed 3 episodes being released on DVD. That's all it was. The same as 3 episodes of a series on DVD. View it as such, and its nowhere near as offensive.

As for the news. Well, I'm not surprised by an emphasis on Buzz. As has been pointed out, Toy Story 2 had an emphasis on Woody, so why not? The recall sounds far-fetched and unlikely - in real life the product would simply be returned and junked. But perhaps they could make it work logically. We don't really know much more, but I suspect some half-baked "rescue" plan will be in operation again.

[ohmahaaha]

1) The wrong motive for a sequel. Disney, as of today, is only interested in doing this to p*ss Pixar off and make a few more bucks out of loveable, established characters. Now, if Disney were to make this because they want to advance the story, make it funnier, more ground breaking and better than the previous ones, I'd give this feature a fair chance.

Dinseyfan, you might be reading too much into their motivations. Basically, it looks to me like they are doing sequels to EVERYTHING, and the reason why is that people are buying the sequels. We hardcore fans know that most of these sequels are a far cry from the type of films that made us hardcore in the first place; but, every now and then a gem shines thru like Toy Story 2 for instance. Animation is Big Box Office both on the big screen and in the Home Video market right now, according to various reports.

[Disney-Fan]

I don't think that they're doing it to annoy Pixar. Like the article mentions, they have to set themselves up for a post-Pixar era. But yes, they are doing it for money. It's what companies do. Its no different than other companies shoddy treatment of their own lovable, established characters. (Live action Scooby Doo anyone? How about Catwoman, Loonatics or Van Helsing?)

Come on, a whole studio for Pixar sequels? Even Disney isn't that desperate for money!

Well, I didn't particularly like The Lion King 1.5, where as I thought Return to Never Land was a much better film, story and script than the original Peter Pan. Other people raves over the Aladdin sequels (especially King of Thieves) but they just leave me cold. We're all different, and we all have different likes and dislikes.

Even Cinderella II wasn't as bad as people made out. Let's face it, had it been an 80's cartoon series, people would have welcomed 3 episodes being released on DVD. That's all it was. The same as 3 episodes of a series on DVD. View it as such, and its nowhere near as offensive.

I only mentioned Lion King II/III as to point out that the likeable ones in the eyes of the general public are the exception, not the norm (I'm basing my answer on people's reactions mainly). I'm actually not at all fond of the third Lion King! Your point of view on Cinderella is lovely, but will the public really see it that way when the title says Cinderella II, not Cinderella: The Series...

[2099net]

Come on, a whole studio for Pixar sequels? Even Disney isn't that desperate for money!

Well it makes sense. Presumably Disney aim to have a Pixar sequel every 12-18 months or so. Far to big a demand on their (now CGI) feature animation studio (which is already developing multiple films) and DisneyToon don't have the skills...

I don't dispute its being done for money though.

I only mentioned Lion King II/III as to point out that the likeable ones in the eyes of the general public are the exception, not the norm (I'm basing my answer on people's reactions mainly). I'm actually not at all fond of the third Lion King! Your point of view on Cinderella is lovely, but will the public really see it that way when the title says Cinderella II, not Cinderella: The Series...

Again I agree. I don't think Cinderella II, Tarzan and Jane, or Stitch should have been called sequels (or even movies to be honest). But the public really don't seem to mind, given the almost constant increase in DTV sales release after release. (Lion King 1.5 being a monster exception to the trend with runaway sales)

[Disney-Fan]

But the public really don't seem to mind, given the almost constant increase in DTV sales release after release. (Lion King 1.5 being a monster exception to the trend with runaway sales)

The kids don't maybe. I've talked with my friends about this a few times, and we all agreed sequels just ruin already fantastic features! I even have an unexplained hatred for these movies...

[Prince Eric]

Did you guys read the enw plot revealed by orlando Sentinel (on the frontpage of UD)???

"the adventures of buzz Lightyear as he is recalled in taiwan where it has been built"

Is it a big fat joke? Or more patheticlly, the only way Disney has found to not have to pay Tom Hanks to give his voice to Woody again, as the story seems to focus on Buzz?


Day after day, this movie sounds more awful...

Well, it doesn't sound more outrageous that the plots of the first two... . I think Disney will prove that it can do a decent job without Pixar. The guys at Disney seem to really admire the Pixar people and I think they've learned a lot from them. People don't understand, but Pixar's winning streak will HAVE to end some day. It's just a natural law that you can't break. Once Pixar becomes a huge empire, they too will start seeking the all-might dollar signs. It's easy to be high-and-mighty on a throne when you have major profits coming in.

I'm actually surprised I said that about Pixar, since I'm a huge fan, but really, people act like if a movie doesn't have Pixar, it's doomed to fail or be lousy. A complete script hasn't even been leaked, so how can we know for sure?

[zack626]

i think that Disney and Pixar should keep an agreement where pixar would stay with disney only for sequles, not new movies, but if they want to continue on with a franchise, they can with the same animation

[yoda_four]

People don't understand, but Pixar's winning streak will HAVE to end some day. It's just a natural law that you can't break. Once Pixar becomes a huge empire, they too will start seeking the all-might dollar signs.

While Walt was still alive, Disney continued it's succesful film streak for almost 20 years. Sure it had some ups and downs (talking about animation), but overall not one of the true feature films from his era were bad.

So, hopefully either the geniuses at Pixar will learn to continually pass on their great skills to every single new employee, as that's what seems to be happening; or maybe it'll start sucking as soon as Lasseer, Catmull, Jobs, Adamson, and etc. pass on. But really, I don't see Pixar having a disappointment anytime soon. C'mon, even Shark Tale was considered a pretty good success.

[2099net]

While Walt was still alive, Disney continued it's succesful film streak for almost 20 years. Sure it had some ups and downs (talking about animation), but overall not one of the true feature films from his era were bad.

So, hopefully either the geniuses at Pixar will learn to continually pass on their great skills to every single new employee, as that's what seems to be happening; or maybe it'll start sucking as soon as Lasseer, Catmull, Jobs, Adamson, and etc. pass on. But really, I don't see Pixar having a disappointment anytime soon. C'mon, even Shark Tale was considered a pretty good success.

No he didn't. He had colossal flops which failed to make back all their money - and it couldn't all be blamed on the War either. Pinocchio lost money.

The question is, can Pixar afford to release a film which could, quite possibily, loose money. Every film is a gamble, and we all know good films have lost money in the past (such as The Iron Giant, it we want to talk animation) While they may be able to afford the production costs, releasing a film that doesn't break even would have dire concequences for a small studio like Pixar, who only release one film per year. Not only would they have to swallow the losses, it would also affect all their income from merchandising for that year. Plus, if Pixar do go independent, they would also have to bear all the advertising and distribution costs. In addition Pixar cannot do anything with its old movies (such as a DVD-re-release) without Disney's participation, which may harm any attempt to generate income from their back catalogue.

[Loomis]

I've talked with my friends about this a few times, and we all agreed sequels just ruin already fantastic features! I even have an unexplained hatred for these movies...

Well, I can't see how that can be true. If a sequel can ruin an original, then the originals aren't really owrth watching then, are they? I can't stand the Beauty and the Beast sequels, but I still think the original is brilliant.

After all, for some people, the "Disney Version" of classics - The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella - is a bastardisation of the original stories. Why can't sequels be part of that ?

As for Toy Story 3, I'll reserve comments UNTIL I HAVE SEEN THE FILM. At the very least, I won't make calls like "Toy Story 3 crap" and "Toy Story 3 doesn't sound that great " until we have something more than a whisper.

[Disney-Fan]

I've talked with my friends about this a few times, and we all agreed sequels just ruin already fantastic features! I even have an unexplained hatred for these movies...

Well, I can't see how that can be true. If a sequel can ruin an original, then the originals aren't really owrth watching then, are they? I can't stand the Beauty and the Beast sequels, but I still think the original is brilliant.

It cheapens the characters, and in the eyes of the general public, if the sequel was bad, than their fond memories of the original movies were probably just because they were once kids. People get turned off seeing the original because of their experience with the sequel.

[2099net]

Well, I can't see how that can be true. If a sequel can ruin an original, then the originals aren't really owrth watching then, are they? I can't stand the Beauty and the Beast sequels, but I still think the original is brilliant.

It cheapens the characters, and in the eyes of the general public, if the sequel was bad, than their fond memories of the original movies were probably just because they were once kids. People get turned off seeing the original because of their experience with the sequel.

No it doesn't. Because the general public continue to buy the product. You have no proof it cheapens the characters apart from like-minded friends. Where as Disney has financial proof the public doesn't mind, and even if they do, they still buy the originals. Meanwhile sales of each sequel are increasing. the Lion King sold loads of DVD copies, despite people being exposed to The Lion King 2 before the DVD release.

I used to think the same - that the DTVs and sequels were harming Disney. But it simply cannot be stated. All statistics point to it not doing so.

[humphreybear]

The biggest problem with a toy story sequal to me (besides the fact of Pixar not doing it, and getting the voices back) is that it sort of defeats the point of toy story 2.

It is basically the same problem I had with the jungle book 2. The whole point of the ending of the Jungle Book was that Mowgli make a decision to go back to the man village. The whole climax of the movie hinges on that decision. He can't go back to the jungle, that is the whole point. He either stays in the jungle with Baloo, or he follows the girl and enters the world of human beings. His jungle friends can't just hang out around the man village, and Mowgli can't just slip back and forth. It is the whole point - he is making a decision that is forevor.

The whole story of toy story 2 is based around the sadness the toys feel because their children grow up and don't need them anymore. This is Jessie's story. This is why Woody made the decision to leave. Those toys coming back to Andy, and coming to terms with the sadness that Andy would outgrow them, was the whole point of the story. That is the climax right there, that is the meaning of the story. There's a little glimpse at the end that Andy's sister will be coming along next, but that's where it ends. That's where it is SUPPOSED to end. I don't want to see those toys playing in Andy's room anymore. The whole point of toy story 2 was that it was bitter sweet, and we can't all keep playing with them in Andy's room as if it is the timeless hundred acre wood going on forever. It defeats the point and makes the drama of the earlier movie meaningless.

I don't want to know what happens when Cinderella lives happily ever after, I don't want to see Ariel's daughter, I don't want to see Boo running around the scream factory anymore - that last look we see on Sully's face is where it is supposed to end. It is the payoff. But this is a little more than that because it takes away from the earlier film. When the sequal basically invalidates the meaning of the earlier movie it is disrepectful not only to the artists who created the original but to the characters themselves for that matter.