Finding Dory

[Disney's Divinity]

Of those movies, six of them are sequels, and of those movies, five have become franchises that include TV shows, shorts and have sequels about to come soon or are in pre-production (Shrek, Madagascar, How to Train Your Dragon, Kung Fu Panda and now Monsters vs. Aliens). So why is it a problem when Pixar announces a sequel to one of their movies ten plus years later?

You do know people have been tearing Dreamworks down for years on here and elsewhere for constantly making sequels to their films? Why would Pixar be a special case? Just wondering.

[Patrick]

Here's the thing: 2013 Pixar is NOT the same Pixar from 1995. 1995 Pixar mainly consisted of a few CalArts graduates and some Disney animators who were working on small projects that were mainly experimental in their nature until they were able to create their first animated feature. They didn't have an image or a reputation to uphold since, in actuality, they were just a quirky animation studio that was trying to sell some ideas of their own to some major studios.

2013 Pixar not only has a reputation to uphold, they have also employed thousands of employees, they have two studios to maintain (in the states and in Canada), and is now part of one of the biggest media conglomerates in the world, which also have their own needs and reputation to take care off. Because they are part of that family, Pixar also needs to make sure they are profitable enough while creating original content, hence the need to reach out towards some of their earlier successes to make sure their franchises remain relevant years later. I know that many look upon this as selling out, but it is a necessary "evil" so to speak. If it wasn't for that, Disney as we know it would have ceased to exist around World War II.

Are you honestly going to argue that Pixar needs money funded from sequels/prequels to maintain its current employment level and studio needs?

Domestic Box Office for Original Titles vs. Profit:
- Toy Story: $191,796,233 (profit $161mil)
- A Bug's Life: $162,798,565 (profit $40mil)
- Monsters Inc.: $255,873,250 (profit $140 mil)
- Finding Nemo: $339,714,978 (profit $245mil)
- The Incredibles: $261,441,092 (profit $170mil)
- Cars: $244,082,982 (profit $120mil)
- Ratatouille: $206,445,654 (proit $56mil)
- Wall-E: $223,808,164 (profit $43mil)
- Up: $293,004,164 (profit $118mil)
- Brave: $237,283,207 (profit $52mil)

Plus, the way you say "I just think the company should get back to its roots" is like you are saying that from then on, it will be nothing but sequels, spin offs and prequels, when in actuality we have The Good Dinosaur, Inside Our and Dia de los Muertos to look forward to in between Monsters U and Finding Dory. All three sound like they will have fascinating ideas and could lead to Wall-E and Up like successes where the quirky concept lead to a story that was very appealing enough for the mainstream audience while the critical audience saw something to cheer about in terms of storytelling quality.

That's not what I said at all? In most cases, building franchises is not about fanservice but instead about making money. Pixar is good about putting out the idea that "a sequel won't be made unless the story is there." I genuinely want to believe them and, again, have not disliked the sequels that they've produced.

Finally, I find it funny how people believe that making a sequel is somehow less creative than creating an original concept just because it is going back to the same world and the same characters. Truth is, expanding on an existing world can be just as challenging, if not more, on a creative level.

Creating sequels is easy in a sense that the characters are already developed and people love them. I'm sure creating a convincing sequel is challenging, absolutely, but why work within a world we've already explored when there are endless possibilities in places we haven't seen?

I'm not saying that Pixar should dedicate themselves to just sequels, and I too want them to pursue better ideas. But I also don't see why people should get angry or upset because ONE sequel was announced amongst many original ideas, or are quick to think that Pixar has lost it. That's all I am saying. Obviously, no matter what I say, what anyone says really, I won't drive home the idea that Finding Dory is not the end of the world or Pixar as people have been saying it is.

Because it's not about one sequel being released, it's about a change in culture for the company. I think you're exaggerating greatly, or maybe I'm not paying attention to others. The backlash that has and is currently occurring is because of the frequency that these sequels/prequels have been released. When a company like Pixar imimtates a company like Dreamworks, it's pretty lame. And people will be loud about it.

[Sotiris]

"It's more often that somebody fails at a sequel than they succeed," said Andrew Stanton, who is directing his first sequel, Finding Dory, a follow-up to his 2003 film, Finding Nemo, for Pixar. "You don't want it to be derivative or redundant."

At Pixar, which released the prequel Monsters University this summer, sequels have been a source of debate. Although Pixar's parent company, Disney, is voracious for them, many at the animation studio, such as Stanton, have mixed feelings about making them. Finding Nemo, the studio's highest-grossing original film, seemed eminently franchise-able from a business standpoint.

"There was polite inquiry from Disney [about a 'Finding Nemo' sequel]," said Stanton, also a vice president at Pixar. "I was always 'No sequels, no sequels.' But I had to get on board from a VP standpoint. [Sequels] are part of the necessity of our staying afloat, but we don't want to have to go there for those reasons. We want to go there creatively, so we said [to Disney], 'Can you give us the timeline about when we release them? Because we'd like to release something we actually want to make, and we might not come up with it the year you want it.'"

Source: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/mo ... 9986.story

[frankf3]

Well that quote really makes me worried about Finding Dory.

[Kyle]

Which part exactly? Its supposed to be encouraging because Pixar didn't want to lock down a set time frame, they only wanted to move forward when they were ready and had a story worth telling.

[Semaj]

If Pixar is sticking up for their own philosophies, more power to them! Finding Nemo is fine as a standalone film.

Apparently, Disney hasn't learned the mistake they made with their own features.

[Atlantica]

I'm trying not to read too much into this, but is it Disney that are pushing for all the Pixar sequels, and not Pixar themselves ? Or was it just 'Finding Nemo' Disney were really interested in ?

[Kyle]

I'm trying not to read too much into this, but is it Disney that are pushing for all the Pixar sequels, and not Pixar themselves ? Or was it just 'Finding Nemo' Disney were really interested in ?

"polite inquiry" could be just that, a gentle suggestion. Like any company they have people who want sure things like sequels to their biggest money makers. Its hard to say if "polite inquiry" was just a way of not making Disney look like the bad guy. It definetely wouldnt have looked good if it looked like they were heavily pressuring them to do it. Its anybody guess though. I dont think its fair to say every sequel was Disney's idea. They probably wouldnt mind seaquels to each and every one of their movies, but Pixar has the final say I think. I'd guess that that cars 2 was the main thing they were pressured into making. They probably also wanted them to do planes but that's where they put there foot down because after the reception of cars 2 the studio's reputation for quality was at stake. Allowing someone else take over any spin offs was probably a compromise.

With the toy story sequels and monsters inc, I could see these been more gentle suggestions that they happened to agree to eventually. I'm not going to try and guess for Finding Dory until after the movie has released. Ellen maye have been laying it on thicker than anyone at Disney ever did. haha

[Atlantica]

Ahh I see, thank you for explaining Kyle, makes sense.

I think Finding Nemo will be a huge hit whatever the outcome, I just want it to be as good as the first.

I'm not concerned with sequels always being 'bigger'; being bigger doesn't always mean better *coughPirates2&3cough*. I would happy with something produced that matches up to the original.

[estefan]

What's particularly contradictory about Stanton's statement regarding sequels keeping them afloat is that their original films are huge smash hits.

[DisneyAnimation88]

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/mo ... 2071.story

“At the end of the [Pixar] movie, some marine mammals are sent to an aquatic park/rehab facility -- a SeaWorld-type environment,” explained Psihoyos, who heard about the meeting through a friend in the animal rights movement who lives near Pixar’s Emeryville, Calif., campus. “After seeing ‘Blackfish,’ they retooled the film so that the sea creatures now have the choice to leave that marine park. They told Gabriela they didn’t want to look back on this film in 50 years and have it be their ‘Song of the South,'" a reference to the 1946 Disney musical that was widely viewed to be racist.

Pixar haven't commented on this as of yet but its an interesting story.

In casting news, Eugene Levy and Diane Keaton will voice Dory's parents and Modern Family's Ty Burrell will voice a Beluga whale called Bailey.

[Warm Regards]

Concept art for Finding Dory.



Soruce: http://www.insidethemagic.net/2013/08/d ... -and-more/

But the D23 Expo audience became hugely excited when “Finding Dory” was introduced next, bringing out director Andrew Stanton and producer Lindsey Collins. The film will take place a year later as Dory is living with Marlin and Nemo.

A traumatic event triggers Dory’s homing instincts and sends her back to where she came from, searching for her family – a big family. Dory’s mom Jenny is being voiced by Diane Keaton and her dad Charlie is being played by Eugene Levy. Bailey the beluga whale will be voiced by Ty Burrell. Returning are Albert Brooks as Marlin and Ellen DeGeneres as Dory.

[DC Fan]

Question:

When listening to Dory...do you picture Ellen? Because I don´t. To me she sounds very different.

But that´s just me. So I wanted to ask you guys about this.

[PatrickvD]

No, I don't actually.

Ellen is a very funny and intuitive comedic actress. She has great timing and range, When she's Dory, she is Dory. Totally in character.

[Atlantica]

Oh my gosh, I love the casting of Dory's parents ! I really hope this movie works, am genuinely so excited for it. Just to see the characters and enter that world again.

[frankf3]

The release date for Finding Dory has been moved to Summer 2016

The sequel to Finding Nemo will now arrive in the June 17, 2016.

source: http://www.firstshowing.net/2013/the-go ... y-to-2016/

[disneyprincess11]

The release date for Finding Dory has been moved to Summer 2016

The sequel to Finding Nemo will now arrive in the June 17, 2016.

source: http://www.firstshowing.net/2013/the-go ... y-to-2016/

REALLY

[PatrickvD]

I was kind of expecting this. I mean, that's what happens when you announce your slate all the way through 2018.

Dates for films switch all the time, but if you've already sent out a press release you're going to have to send another every time you switch something. I get that announcing those dates was basically just snagging up the best slots in summer and winter to beat other studios, but we're probably going to get a lot more of these announcements over the next year.

[Kyle]

I knew there was no way they would be able to stick to that many dates. They announced them way too soon.

[Semaj]

Disney did something like this back in 2004, when they were reinforcing their "permanent" switch-over to CGI. Following Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons (originally titled A Day with Wilbur Robinson) was scheduled for 2006, and Bolt (originally American Dog) for 2007. Tangled (originally Rapunzel) was scheduled for 2008. Of course, the first overhaul led to a chain reaction of each successive film being pushed back another year or two.

When I first read the article regarding The Good Dinosaur's overhaul, the first thing I had in mind was a Jenga tower. Bob Peterson's removal from the "tower" must've been one too many. There's probably more to this story, hopefully not like with Brave, because to be honest, I haven't been feeling pumped for this film like I am for Inside Out.