DVDizzy Forum

I'm not skeptic that it will be bad. It probably won't be. And I had a feeling the Canadian studio would be doing stuff like this.

It's just so... unnecessary! Especially after Lasseter shut down Disney sequels. I'd rather have Disney DTV derivatives than Pixar ones. Especially to Cars, which is in my bottom 3 Pixar films.

Entertainment in general is unnecessary. but if the quality is good enough, by the time the credits roll we feel like it was worth while and meaningful in some way. Either it made us laugh, cry whatever.

I'm just saying with a Cars 2, the Cars Toons, and existing 'living plane' type stuff - this is unnecessary for Pixar to do.

In the immortal words of Bookworm, "eesh." Sure, this has immediately excited me more than any direct-to-video project in years, but like others, I don't think it sounds very promising. I'm up for a <i>Cars</i> sequel and though I feel it's even less called for, I'll be there to see <i>Monsters, Inc. 2</i>, but I think if Pixar was going to get into the direct-to-video market, they should be doing it with something different. Then again, I guess this is different. Because, you see, they're not talking cars but talking planes. The fact is, if it was good enough to go to theaters without diluting the Pixar name, it would. Otherwise, it's not and even if it's on the order of the <i>Tinker Bell</i> movies or better, do we really want less than Grade A product from Pixar?

To be perfectly honest with you guys, I am taking this news with a grain of salt. I've been checking all of my animation and entertainment news sites and none of them have news on this. Considering that this would be Pixar's first DTV project this would be big news to report on. But alas, nothing on the matter, which is very suspect.

I'm personally waiting for more sites to pick up on this...

wasn't there already Planes in the movie Cars...



look at the very top...there's a blimp and a Helicopter and an AirPlane

and here's a plane that is in Cars..Barney Stormin

Lasseter wanted Disney to get out of the DTV game so that Pixar could without competition...?

"Hoju" posted in that site's comment section:

So, why not exploit the movie nobody really cares about - and that children love - rather than risk "ruining" one of their classics with a follow-up.

The more money Cars-related stuff makes, they can finance more stuff along the lines of Wall-E, Up, etc. Riskier more original stuff that won't move merchandise (ala Ratatouille).

That's a pretty interesting point of view. I personally love Cars, but this is a little much. With the never-ending Pixar sequels/spinoffs (and I'm actually fine with the sequels) and the Disney live-action remakes, I'm getting worried for Disney.

How much say does Lasseter have? I mean, if Bob Iger says to do it, then he has to?

PatrickvD wrote:
they had a joke on American Dad where Stan mentioned the new Pixar movie "Clothes"... he added that 'John Ratzenberger plays a tie'

we're really only two film away from that becoming a reality. Imagine the clothes they could sell. "wear your favorite characters from the film!"

That's really funny.

estefan wrote:Hmm, interesting. I guess Lasseter needs to give the direct-to-video Disney department something to do besides Tinkerbell spin-offs.

Well, Pixar Canada isn't making Tinker Bell movies...

Kyle wrote:Pixar's track record should earn them the benefit of the doubt, at the very least. Come on guys, how many times do they have to get people worried about something their doing, only to prove the doubters wrong before we finally catch on and realize they know what their doing? We go through this nearly every time something new is anounced. its a cycle.

If it was just one thing, then I think that people would have just as much faith as they usually do in Pixar, but with a lot of seemingly strange decisions as of late, people are just wondering what's going on at Pixar.

Neal wrote:I'm not skeptic that it will be bad. It probably won't be. And I had a feeling the Canadian studio would be doing stuff like this.

It's just so... unnecessary! Especially after Lasseter shut down Disney sequels.

This. (Wow, I actually said that. Haha.) Absolutely this. I mean, the point of this probably is:
a) to sell toy planes (duh)
b) to give something for the Pixar Canada studio to do

Kyle wrote:Entertainment in general is unnecessary. but if the quality is good enough, by the time the credits roll we feel like it was worth while and meaningful in some way. Either it made us laugh, cry whatever.

But Pixar are the ones who always say that they'll only make a movie if the story is worth telling. Can you honestly say that the motive to sell toys wasn't the main reasoning behind Planes? I mean, really? I think that giving Pixar Canada something to do is a valid point, but still, they could've come up with a more creative, more...original? idea...

Luke wrote:The fact is, if it was good enough to go to theaters without diluting the Pixar name, it would. Otherwise, it's not and even if it's on the order of the Tinker Bell movies or better, do we really want less than Grade A product from Pixar?

Excellent point. Again, going back to what I already said about Pixar saying in the past that they'd only make films that NEED to have their stories told. Planes...I'm thinking not so much. I mean, what was the MAIN point behind Pixar Canada? To make shorts to exsisting Pixar movies? I don't even know if Pixar Canada was so necessary.

Escapay wrote:Coming soon...Trains!

Pixar will then re-name Cars as Automobiles...

albert

I want a ****ing car, right. ****ing. now.

anyway, I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I mean, I love the Cars movie, but I feel like with the Cars Toons, a Cars 2, and now a spin-off they might just be pushing it a little.

But still, this is Pixar, and they haven't disappointed me yet (ok well I didn't really care for Ratatouille and WALL-E at first but I like 'em now lol) so we'll see what happens!

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... isney.html

Some comments from the comments section:

These are DTV films. They're developed by Disney artists, not Pixar artists. DTV is Union, Pixar is not.

Funny.. if you've been visiting Disney and seeing artwork and talking to artists about it, wouldn't it make sense that it's not a Pixar project?

***

estefan wrote:Hmm, interesting. I guess Lasseter needs to give the direct-to-video Disney department something to do besides Tinkerbell spin-offs.

The article that Patrick posted didn't say if Pixar Canada or DisneyToons would be making the film...so maybe you are right...?

pap64 wrote:To be perfectly honest with you guys, I am taking this news with a grain of salt. I've been checking all of my animation and entertainment news sites and none of them have news on this.

Well, the article does say that it's an exclusive...and this morning, it was mentioned on a couple websites that I visited.

disneyboy20022 wrote:wasn't there already Planes in the movie Cars...

I wonder if those will be the inspiration for the looks of the planes in Planes... I mean, I would assume so, since, if it's a spinoff of Cars, they'd have to have the same look...

Steve H.:

The project is being boarded, visualized, etc. at Disney Toons in Glendale.

Why? Why open another division of Pixar only to have this done at Disney Toons.

I don't get it...

I agree somewhat with the Hoju guy that Amy quoted, but I can't help but think that the whole idea of Planes is a bit contrived, almost a sort of self-parody. Hopefully this won't do anything to taint Pixar's image with the greater populace. Say what you like about Pixar, but I'd hate to see them go through what WDAS has often had to go through during the past decade or so.

@Amy: See, even if a story is exclusive to a site other sites can still talk about it. They just say "X News has gotten an exclusive reveal of Y movie", quoting the original source.

I just find it odd that very few sites have picked up on this or even made a brief mention of it.

But they haven't done a spinoff about Pinewood Derby cars yet! Why do planes first?

I can't wait for Planes to subliminally give a message address about anti-terrorism, Pro GOP, and the American spirit. The enemy- a missile nuke, is a liberal.

Super Aurora wrote:I can't wait for Planes to subliminally give a message address about anti-terrorism, Pro GOP, and the American spirit. The enemy- a missile nuke, is a liberal.

Sounds like they hired Rudy Matt as co-writer.

Goliath wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:I can't wait for Planes to subliminally give a message address about anti-terrorism, Pro GOP, and the American spirit. The enemy- a missile nuke, is a liberal.

Sounds like they hired Rudy Matt as co-writer.

Wow...maybe they liked his ideas so much he's now a ceo?? I didn't know that one thread was really a job application contest to be a ceo at Disney..sounds like Disney went Donald Trump Apprentice..instead of Money money money it could be Money Disney Money

http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26866

So this isn't being done by their new Canadian studio? I cant really defend the idea anymore if so.

Yeah, it's being planned at Disney Toons - same folks who do the Tink/fairy movies.

I guess this was what Steve has been teasing since last year June:

I was able to get a look at some of the visual development for the next group of Toon Disney features (waay different than Tinkerbell) and my first reaction was: "That's going to make the Mouse a lot of money!"

Because it is a real commercial property.

(And no, I'm not going to say anything about what it is, since the company hasn't announced much about it yet.)

There's also a new c.g.i series of features at Diz Toons -- apart from the Tinkerbells -- in early development.

Stories being scripted, characters being developed. (New characters, but cousins of other creations in the Disney empire ...

... some of us were hoping for a "Tiny Toons" Disney style. This was not at all what I had imagined or hoped for.

So Lasseter was going to blow a gasket if Disney touched Toy Story, but it's okay for them to make a Cars spinoff? Now, granted, Pixar wasn't working with Disney on the original TS3 idea, and apparently they must be with Planes. But it just strikes me as odd. But, how much say did Pixar have in Buzz Lightyear of Star Command?

Personally, I'm finding Lasseter to be a hypocrite because is there really a huge difference between the DTV sequels and these spin offs?