I heard that they would possibly get back with Disney, but nothing is confirmed.
I think it would be cool if they went either:
-independant and made pg-13 and up movies alongside G
- or got back with Disney and also released movies through Touchstone.
What do u guys think?
So what's next for our beloved Pixar?
I would like to see Pixar get back with Disney, although I'm willing to accept that it might not be in either of their best interests to. With the amount of time it takes to make a single computer animated movie, I don't think we'd see 'adult-oriented' works - how many child-unfriendly animated films have done well at the box office? The <i>South Park</i> movie?
I think with Pixar, it's a matter of the story they want to tell dictating how it turns out, rather than them saying "Let's make a G-rated family-friendly movie." With their six films, there's really equal appeal to children and adults (maybe <i>Monsters, Inc.</i> sways a little bit to the childrens' side), whether or not the public sees it that way, and whether or not they're marketed that way.
There's heart and there are values, and I really can't see any need for there being a PG-13 or R rated Pixar film, if they continue to make movies in the vein that they do, celebrating positive and negative characteristics with a knowing eye and never gratuitous language, violence, sex or drugs.
I think with Pixar, it's a matter of the story they want to tell dictating how it turns out, rather than them saying "Let's make a G-rated family-friendly movie." With their six films, there's really equal appeal to children and adults (maybe <i>Monsters, Inc.</i> sways a little bit to the childrens' side), whether or not the public sees it that way, and whether or not they're marketed that way.
There's heart and there are values, and I really can't see any need for there being a PG-13 or R rated Pixar film, if they continue to make movies in the vein that they do, celebrating positive and negative characteristics with a knowing eye and never gratuitous language, violence, sex or drugs.
"Fifteen years from now, when people are talking about 3-D, they will talk about the business before 'Monsters vs. Aliens' and the business after 'Monsters vs. Aliens.' It's the line in the sand." - Greg Foster, IMAX chairman and president
You are right.Luke wrote:I would like to see Pixar get back with Disney, although I'm willing to accept that it might not be in either of their best interests to. With the amount of time it takes to make a single computer animated movie, I don't think we'd see 'adult-oriented' works - how many child-unfriendly animated films have done well at the box office? The <i>South Park</i> movie?
I think with Pixar, it's a matter of the story they want to tell dictating how it turns out, rather than them saying "Let's make a G-rated family-friendly movie." With their six films, there's really equal appeal to children and adults (maybe <i>Monsters, Inc.</i> sways a little bit to the childrens' side), whether or not the public sees it that way, and whether or not they're marketed that way.
There's heart and there are values, and I really can't see any need for there being a PG-13 or R rated Pixar film, if they continue to make movies in the vein that they do, celebrating positive and negative characteristics with a knowing eye and never gratuitous language, violence, sex or drugs.
As long as they keep their winning formula I'll be happy.
BTW the South Park movie rocked big time.
It would be interesting to maybe see a war movie or something, know hwat I mean?
You know, I've heard a lot of talk from people on the net about Pixar doing "edgier stuff" - meaning PG-13 or R-rated movies (though thats not what defines "edgy" for me). Why on earth do people think this is going to happen?
Anyway, I think Pixar's projects are going to remain consistent in nature & quality with what they've already done for a long time to come. Because of that, I find it hard to really care wether or not they get back with Disney, since the actual movies won't really be affected much by who the studio is. I'd rather have them be with Disney over anyone else, but I'm not concerned about it.
Anyway, I think Pixar's projects are going to remain consistent in nature & quality with what they've already done for a long time to come. Because of that, I find it hard to really care wether or not they get back with Disney, since the actual movies won't really be affected much by who the studio is. I'd rather have them be with Disney over anyone else, but I'm not concerned about it.
-
deathie mouse
- Ultraviolet Edition
- Posts: 1391
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
- Location: Alea jacta est
-
SNERWW22785
- Member
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 12:41 am
Steve Jobs, bless him, is really out on a limb with the distribution deal he's looking for.
Basically he wants the Lucas deal, where Pixar pays a flat fee to a studio to distribute the film while keeping essentially all profit.
Two things make this highly improabable to get:
1) Financing of the films themselves. Lucas gets away with it because every dime spent on the actual nuts & bolts production of the Star Wars films was his own (excluding of course the original '77 picture, which was made, comparatively speaking, on-the-cheap as a B picture for Fox.)
2) Lucas basically fell into that particular deal out of friendship with Alan Ladd, who was subsequently fired right around the 1980 release of "The Empire Strikes Back" because the deal was going to be so financially un-successful for Fox.
Basically, it is highly unlikely that lightning will strike twice and a major Hollywood studio, no matter how prestigious the Pixar name has become, will enter into an agreement where all they can hope for is breakeven while Pixar gets filthy rich.
Personally, I think Jobs' best choice would simple to be like Walt - go independent, set up his own distribution firm. Break Free, Steve!
Basically he wants the Lucas deal, where Pixar pays a flat fee to a studio to distribute the film while keeping essentially all profit.
Two things make this highly improabable to get:
1) Financing of the films themselves. Lucas gets away with it because every dime spent on the actual nuts & bolts production of the Star Wars films was his own (excluding of course the original '77 picture, which was made, comparatively speaking, on-the-cheap as a B picture for Fox.)
2) Lucas basically fell into that particular deal out of friendship with Alan Ladd, who was subsequently fired right around the 1980 release of "The Empire Strikes Back" because the deal was going to be so financially un-successful for Fox.
Basically, it is highly unlikely that lightning will strike twice and a major Hollywood studio, no matter how prestigious the Pixar name has become, will enter into an agreement where all they can hope for is breakeven while Pixar gets filthy rich.
Personally, I think Jobs' best choice would simple to be like Walt - go independent, set up his own distribution firm. Break Free, Steve!
Last edited by SNERWW22785 on Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The Poor Captain Has a Splitting Headache...We musn't Annoy Him!"
It's not a huge deal to me if Pixar leaves Disney or stays with them. I just hope that, whatever they do, they will continue to make movies like they have been, and not change styles if they leave Disney.
I personally feel that Pixar is the only company that has made 3D animated movies work. There's been lots of other CGI animated movies that have been funny and some that even had a good story, but none of them did it like Pixar did. Pixar went into the 3D world with the idea that "we're going to make spectacular, eye-popping animation like no one has ever seen before, but that's not our focus. Our focus isn't how great it looks or how many jokes it has, our focus is the story we're trying to tell." And that vision is what has made Pixar what it is. Wherever they go, whatever they do, as long as they keep their movies up to the quality they've been at, they will never go wrong.
Any studio can make a movie, but to make a movie that can get the laughs, the emotion, the action, the quality story, and still get a G or PG rating so that young kids can see it but also so that adults will enjoy it, that takes skill. It's one thing that I've always respected Pixar (and Disney) for. I'm not saying that I would be against a PG-13 or R movie from Pixar, but I don't know if I would be able to think of them the same. I can't (nor do I want to) picture a Pixar movie with drugs, gore, sex, or stuff like that. It's just not the kind of thing that I would ever want in one of their movies. But as long as the reason for the rating would be unavoidable for the story that they are trying to tell, I'm fine with it.
The only reasons I would be against Pixar leaving Disney: a) I would feel sorry for Disney, losing such a great company, b) It wouldn't feel the same without the 3D Disney logo at the beginning of the movie, and c) I would have to change my name if I wanted to stay on these boards.
Okay, I wasn't planning on saying all that, but that's what came out, so I'm going with it.
I personally feel that Pixar is the only company that has made 3D animated movies work. There's been lots of other CGI animated movies that have been funny and some that even had a good story, but none of them did it like Pixar did. Pixar went into the 3D world with the idea that "we're going to make spectacular, eye-popping animation like no one has ever seen before, but that's not our focus. Our focus isn't how great it looks or how many jokes it has, our focus is the story we're trying to tell." And that vision is what has made Pixar what it is. Wherever they go, whatever they do, as long as they keep their movies up to the quality they've been at, they will never go wrong.
Any studio can make a movie, but to make a movie that can get the laughs, the emotion, the action, the quality story, and still get a G or PG rating so that young kids can see it but also so that adults will enjoy it, that takes skill. It's one thing that I've always respected Pixar (and Disney) for. I'm not saying that I would be against a PG-13 or R movie from Pixar, but I don't know if I would be able to think of them the same. I can't (nor do I want to) picture a Pixar movie with drugs, gore, sex, or stuff like that. It's just not the kind of thing that I would ever want in one of their movies. But as long as the reason for the rating would be unavoidable for the story that they are trying to tell, I'm fine with it.
The only reasons I would be against Pixar leaving Disney: a) I would feel sorry for Disney, losing such a great company, b) It wouldn't feel the same without the 3D Disney logo at the beginning of the movie, and c) I would have to change my name if I wanted to stay on these boards.
Okay, I wasn't planning on saying all that, but that's what came out, so I'm going with it.
Well, Pixar may produce "edgier" stuff. Remember when rumours were flying about Marvel having meetings with Pixar (or vice versa).
If Pixar are about to loose their distribution deal with Disney, then a film a year will not keep the studio afloat. Not if Pixar are going to have to finance each movie 100% themselves. The rewards may be greater, but it only needs one of two movies (ie two years) of luckwarm box office and the company would be in big trouble. The risk is too great when output in minimal.
Even Lucas didn't survive on the Star Wars films and merchandise alone (although he obviously could, but not maintaining the company he has today). He needed money from ILM and Skywaker Sound and THX (which he ended up having to sell) to carry out his ambitions. Dreamworks is having problems - at least the serious movie making arm of Dreamworks. Geffen has had to sell his record company and the animation is being split and sold off. I'm no expert, but I think this has just as much to do with removing some of the debt burdeon from Dreamworks Animation making it easier for them to fund and make new movies, as spinning off a successful company.
I can see Pixar making one "Pixar" film a year, but also tieing up with existing properties to make "lower tier" movies. For example, a Captain America DTV or two with costs split between Marvel and Pixar would be a nice little additional revenue stream.
Also, for those who bemoan Disney's failure to keep Pixar, while pointing to Dreamworks and PDI or Fox and Blue Sky, remember PDI is majority owned by Dreamworks (and is in fact now Dreamworks-PDI) and Blue Sky is (totally?) owned by Fox. Only Pixar is independent.
I see Pixar continuing to make "Pixar type" movies, at a rate of approx. 1 per year. So no change at all in the actual content that matters. I see these films being distributed by a number of studios, with Pixar choosing a studio which suits the film the best, which may include Disney. The partner studio would bankroll some of the film. Just like Jerry Bruckhimer makes movies in partnership with Disney, Fox and Columbia.
I also see Pixar spreading their wings a bit and making a number of smaller "licenced" films. Perhaps Marvel, perhaps some films based on toy lines. Perhaps even a TV series (just as Dreamworks have a TV series).
As for Disney. I hope loosing Pixar and effectively having them as competition will give them the incentive to make better films, just as Don Bluth's films resulted in a revitalised Disney.
Hopefully it will be a win/win situation for Pixar and Disney.
If Pixar are about to loose their distribution deal with Disney, then a film a year will not keep the studio afloat. Not if Pixar are going to have to finance each movie 100% themselves. The rewards may be greater, but it only needs one of two movies (ie two years) of luckwarm box office and the company would be in big trouble. The risk is too great when output in minimal.
Even Lucas didn't survive on the Star Wars films and merchandise alone (although he obviously could, but not maintaining the company he has today). He needed money from ILM and Skywaker Sound and THX (which he ended up having to sell) to carry out his ambitions. Dreamworks is having problems - at least the serious movie making arm of Dreamworks. Geffen has had to sell his record company and the animation is being split and sold off. I'm no expert, but I think this has just as much to do with removing some of the debt burdeon from Dreamworks Animation making it easier for them to fund and make new movies, as spinning off a successful company.
I can see Pixar making one "Pixar" film a year, but also tieing up with existing properties to make "lower tier" movies. For example, a Captain America DTV or two with costs split between Marvel and Pixar would be a nice little additional revenue stream.
Also, for those who bemoan Disney's failure to keep Pixar, while pointing to Dreamworks and PDI or Fox and Blue Sky, remember PDI is majority owned by Dreamworks (and is in fact now Dreamworks-PDI) and Blue Sky is (totally?) owned by Fox. Only Pixar is independent.
I see Pixar continuing to make "Pixar type" movies, at a rate of approx. 1 per year. So no change at all in the actual content that matters. I see these films being distributed by a number of studios, with Pixar choosing a studio which suits the film the best, which may include Disney. The partner studio would bankroll some of the film. Just like Jerry Bruckhimer makes movies in partnership with Disney, Fox and Columbia.
I also see Pixar spreading their wings a bit and making a number of smaller "licenced" films. Perhaps Marvel, perhaps some films based on toy lines. Perhaps even a TV series (just as Dreamworks have a TV series).
As for Disney. I hope loosing Pixar and effectively having them as competition will give them the incentive to make better films, just as Don Bluth's films resulted in a revitalised Disney.
Hopefully it will be a win/win situation for Pixar and Disney.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database