Storming In

Blue Sky has officially announced that a fifth Ice Age is happening, and just in time for the holidays, too! (I bet you are all cringing right now…)

When does the fifth installment come out? July 15, 2016…

Makes sense, since Ice Age movies are now July releases. It's been that way since the third one, which raked in the most money out of the four. But wait a minute!

Blue Sky was supposed to have Anubis - a co-production with Fox Animation Studios based on Bruce Zick's ancient Egyptian-themed The Anubis Tapestry: Between Twilights - ready for summer 2016… Well, it's been moved to March 23, 2018. That was one of the dates Fox secured for a future animated release... Remember? Fox unveiled that massive animation slate where each release was simply called "Untitled Fox/DWA/Blue Sky" back in May? One of the dates on that big ol' slate was 3/23/2018.

Now that slot has been filled! Which slot will be filled next?

Anubis' will also be the first Blue Sky film to be a March release since 2008's Horton Hears a Who!

What do you think of this recent rescheduling? I for one am a bit disappointed, but hey… It's freakin' Ice Age, the last one grossed over $800 million at the worldwide box office much like its predecessor. These films really smash the overseas box office, make no mistake. Of course Blue Sky was going to make another one, and soon… I just wish we didn't have to wait so long for Anubis. Out of all the films on Blue Sky's upcoming slate, that one intrigued me the most. Rio 2 looks like the usual, I'm very much on the fence with Peanuts and 2017's Ferdinand could go either way.

Anyways, what's your take on all this? Sound off below!

Welcome Back, Tintin!

The sequel to The Adventures of Tintin is a go!

Peter Jackson recently stated that he will begin working on it after he finishes up The Hobbit trilogy (presumably in mid-2014), adding that his return to the Middle Earth saga held him up a bit. At one point in time, it was certain that the film would be a 2015 release, but with The Hobbit being expanded into a three-part film series that ended up with a late 2014 conclusion, it seemed like it would miss the planned 2015 date. Also, several big events started to crowd up 2015… Little films like, you know… The Avengers: Age of Ultron, Star Wars: Episode VII, Batman vs. Superman/Crossover Clusterf*ck...

Then it seemed like it wouldn't happen for a long while because Jackson said weeks and weeks ago that he was going to quit the big-budget blockbuster scene and focus on smaller-scale projects. Well, I didn't think Tintin 2 would disappear just like that. Since it was successful, they couldn't wait too long to give us the sequel. Spielberg also insisted not too long ago that it would be out by late 2015, so he's certainly hoping it'll get made soon.

/Film's Russ Fincher suggests that it will be released sometime after summer 2016, which is a given at this rate. 2016 would be a better place for it, presumably sometime in the autumn. Maybe October, where it's not crammed between blockbuster and animated competition. In North America, the first film was thrown into a box office battlefield with very little marketing (Paramount was giving all of the marketing love to Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol) behind it, but off of that very weak opening came a solid $77 million gross, proving it had good word of mouth - even with family-friendly competition in its way, like the third Chipmunks movie. Thankfully, the film was a box office hit overseas.

With studios slowly but surely announcing 2016 releases, Paramount could reveal The Adventures of Tintin: Prisoners of the Sun's release date sometime soon. Maybe.

What do you think?

That Second Sequel...

Remember when Disney CEO Bob Iger stated months ago that more sequels were in the pipeline after Monsters University?

"On the animation front, Pixar continues to create great value for our company too. We are very excited about Monsters University which opens next month. Pixar’s slate of films for the next five years includes fantastic original stories as well as some great sequels to their previous hits. And as we recently announced, we are in production on one of those sequels, Finding Dory, featuring Ellen DeGeneres once again as the voice of Dory, one of the most beloved characters from Finding Nemo which was one of the most popular and profitable movies to date."

Back when that was leaked, I wondered what the cryptic next sequel would be. I mean, either Mr. Iger made a mistake and assumed more were coming... Or Pixar is indeed working on two sequels, Finding Dory being the first of them like he said.

Well, I think we've got our answer...

And this bit/possible confirmation probably slipped under all of our radars, because I don't know anyone who was aware of this...

What is the next sequel you may ask?

You may have expected it... Or not...

...

Cars 3...

That's right... Cars 3...

Michael Wallis, who has written extensively about Route 66 and is also appropriately the voice of the Sheriff in both of the Cars films, flat out mentioned at the 22 minute mark of this recent interview that a Cars 3 is indeed happening. He also stated that it will take place back in Radiator Springs and it will also explore Route 99.

Now, before anyone panics - or gets excited, depending on who you are - let's just consider a few things...

Maybe Wallis knows Lasseter personally, and Lasseter said he'd like to do another Cars film with a Route 99 setting. Maybe Wallis assumes that if Lasseter wants to make a third Cars, it'll happen. So this may be the case, because honestly, I don't think anyone at Pixar wants to do another Cars film. I don't think they even wanted to really make the second one to begin with. As many of you may know, it is my theory that Cars 2 was green lit because Bob Iger wanted a second one based on the merchandise sales of the first one, and successfully coaxed Lasseter into revisiting his universe... His very personal universe! And Lasseter is an executive, so...

But... Maybe Cars 3 won't be a Pixar film. Wallis didn't mention Pixar specifically (interestingly enough, he said he wasn't fond of the second film - probably because it gravitated away from Route 66 and the charm of the first film) during the interview. Maybe it'll be a DisneyToon film produced for the obvious buck, so that Pixar doesn't have to make it and further risk their reputation. I mean, they're already getting way too much heat over two very troubled productions (normal for any film studio, period) and another film that wasn't exactly the best thing since sliced bread.

Then you might ask, why would Lasseter allow the direct-to-video studio to handle the third outing in his series? Well, Disney was totally content with making the Planes series theatrical, something that really should not have happened because, look at how many people have mistaken Planes for a Pixar film! Maybe Lasseter would have another crew do the film rather than the Pixarians, maybe the people at Pixar aren't too proud of Cars 2 and wouldn't want to make another one. DisneyToon, on the other hand, is another story. They'd probably make one if they had to. Some fans might not mind its existence as much since Pixar isn't the studio making it.

So if it does turn out to be true, what would I think? I wouldn't be phased at all. I wouldn't be annoyed. I won't mind...

A Cars 3 existing does not bother me, because I understand that Disney probably really wants it and that Pixar once in a while has to sacrifice artistic integrity now that they are a corporation (that is, if Pixar will be the ones to make it), and are part of a massive corporate mega-empire that is run by a man who loves franchising things. A while back, I said I had seen the Cars franchise as something of an Ice Age-esque series for them, one that's guaranteed to make easy money worldwide and through merchandising sales. As of now, sales have topped $10 billion!

As long as we get something like that and not a sequel to another one of their other films, I'll be fine. I'll take a few Cars sequels over a Toy Story 4 any day, because I personally don't want them to make another one of those - the trilogy is perfect as it is. I've said that I'd accept a Brad Bird-helmed Incredibles sequel, but I don't really want Pixar to make sequels in general. I don't hate sequels, I just don't think every film needs one. Luckily, Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 are fantastic, Monsters University is good and is also not an insult to the original in my eyes, and Finding Dory has the potential to be great... But I always think in my head when they announce a sequel, "Okay Pixar, you can stop there."

It's funny how many people rip Pixar apart for a few sequels. This is a studio that continues to make original productions that don't happen to be based on any pre-existing source materials, this is a studio that will release a sequel many years after the original regardless of whether people think the wait was too long or not. This studio even outright confirms to the press that a director has been removed from one of their films, most other studios don't really take the time to do that. You certainly didn't hear much about the person who was booted off of How To Train Your Dragon, or the six people that were to direct Hotel Transylvania but didn't, now did you?

It's also funny how people are okay with a studio like Sony Pictures Animation releasing four sequels in a row: The Smurfs 2, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2, The Smurfs 3 and Hotel Transylvania 2. That's okay? DreamWorks making quite a few sequels is now okay? I thought everyone hated the studio for doing that 5 years ago. It's totally fine if Blue Sky makes Ice Age and Rio sequels? No one holds those studios to the standards Pixar is held to. If you ask me, I think Sony Animation, Blue Sky and DreamWorks are all capable of making animated masterpieces as much as Pixar is... But that's another story for another rant.

Look, I understand, Pixar didn't make sequels for a while though evidence does suggest that they wanted to make a third Toy Story as far back as 2002, and they supposedly kicked around a follow-up to Monsters, Inc. way back before the Disney acquisition. But also remember that Toy Story 3, Monsters University and Finding Dory had to be made due to the existence of the prepared Circle 7 versions. Cars 2 was, in my eyes, definitely pushed on Pixar by Disney due to the merchandise sales (there was no finalized Circle 7 script), and it'll be the reason why a Cars 3 will exist, not Pixar is "out of ideas". Pixar has many original films coming, two will be out in 2015 while many other projects are secretly being cooked up. Of course, to those who don't know of the studio's upcoming slate, Pixar would be out of ideas. People act as if Finding Dory is the next film from the Emeryville studio.

I don't warmly welcome Cars 3, but I'm okay with it existing. Personally, I'd be fine with DisneyToon producing it, I'd prefer that Pixar not make it, give it to DisneyToon and just continue with what they are doing so that the franchise can still please Disney brass and the millions of children who love it. In a better world, John Lasseter would say "no" right to the faces of Disney's suits and declare that Pixar will only make original projects, but we know that would not fly in an empire like Disney. Better that than a Toy Story 4 or a subpar sequel to another one of their films. Cars 2 already disappointed a lot of people, so a third Cars really would not hurt. It's not needed, but it's not the worst thing ever either. I'm okay with it existing...

That is, if what Michael Wallis said was true. What do you think? Rumor? Mere assumption on his end? Or do you think a third Cars is definitely happening?

Cue the beginning of the blogosphere apocalypse in 3... 2... 1...

Pixar's Game Plan

The President of Pixar himself, Ed Catmull, gave us an idea of what the studio's future will be like and their plans involving both original films and sequels... At a time when several are very concerned about their current and future endeavors...

In speaking with Buzz Feed's Adam B. Vary earlier today, Catmull stated...

“For artistic reasons... it’s really important that we do an original film a year. Every once in a while, we get a film where we want or people want to see something continuing in that world — which is the rationale behind the sequel. They want those characters, which means we were successful with them. But if you keep doing that, then you aren’t doing original films.”

Vary implies that Catmulls means that Pixar will "scale back" the production of sequels "significantly". Many are quick to jump the gun and state that Pixar is all about sequels now, but of course, if you follow them and read up on the news, you'll know that Pixar has over five original projects in the works.

I'm not really sure if the whole "we want or people want to see something continuing in that world" explanation is the true rationale behind the recent sequels. Toy Story 3 and Monsters University mostly exist because Pixar had to make them, Disney got as far as copyrighting scripts for their aborted Circle 7 versions that they were going to make had they lost Pixar after Cars. The same applies to Finding Dory. Disney had all of those three ready. But look what happened with the first two...

Toy Story 3 was a miracle and the rare third film that was excellent whilst being very worthy of the first two. Critical reception was through the roof, with the film getting a Best Picture nomination at the Oscars much like Up from the previous year (whilst giving animation a lot of much-needed cred in a world where supposedly "superior" live action films dominate). Monsters University got solid reception, though many agree that the first is superior and it's not a phenomenal film by any means. But at least it wasn't Cars 2. Care went into that there film! Pixar made sure to make those great and they made sure that they weren't the typical mediocre/unsatisfying sequels to great films. Cars 2 does not count, that film *conspiracy theorist mode* obviously exists because Disney wanted it, Iger coaxed Lasseter into doing another film about his universe and then boom! Therefore, Pixar didn't need a good film with it... Just something they had to get off their chest because they didn't want to make it in the first place. *okay, conspiracy theorist mode off*

We also have no idea how Finding Dory will turn out. Vary points out that the film is the only sequel on the slate... What about those other sequels that Disney CEO Bob Iger mentioned during a shareholder conference?

It's also no surprise that Pixar has a film scheduled for release on November 22, 2017. That same year, another film of theirs is coming out in June. Since Pixar will give us an original during the summer and a sequel during the autumn in 2015, many predict (including myself to some extent) that the November 2017 release will be a sequel.

What could it possibly be though? The Incredibles 2 is the one everyone wants but a third Cars is the one Disney probably wants, unless Planes 1 & 2 are very profitable so that Disney wouldn't even need another Cars film to keep the bean counters happy. Don't mention a fourth Toy Story, despite the fact that "rumors" annoyingly pop up from time to time. If anything, it'll either be Incredibles 2 or Cars 3 if Iger is right and there is going to be another sequel after Finding Dory. Maybe Pixar plans on kicking off a franchise with one of their upcoming originals. You know, like an epic trilogy or something with the first film ending with a cliffhanger. That would be interesting, since Pixar never really created an original film that was singlehandedly meant to kick off a big series. You never know! That could very well be in the cards.

Either we'll get a new sequel between 2016 and 2018, or Iger has no clue what's going on and assumes that they are making more sequels or whatever. After all he did say that "to his knowledge", no hand-drawn films were in development at Walt Disney Animation Studios a few months back. He could be dead wrong about what the Emeryville folks have cooking.

Back to Catmull, though. Catmull very much believes in original films, as evidenced by his comments on continuing to expand already established worlds whilst not creating new ones. Walt Disney was mostly against creating sequels, feeling that you didn't try anything new with continuations of the things you already made... "You can't top pigs with pigs," he famously said after the requested sequels to his The Three Little Pigs short didn't achieve the same success as the first. Early development on sequels to Snow White and Bambi were rightfully halted. Walt never had a sequel made to one of his animated films during his lifetime. Walt Disney Animation Studios has very, very few sequels in their canon.

“We’re going to have an original film every year, then every other year have a sequel to something. That’s the rough idea.”

This comment from Catmull kind of contradicts Vary's comment on Pixar's aim to slow the production of sequels down. But then again, Vary only presents excerpts from the interview... Did Catmull outright say to him that production of sequels will be scaled back? Also, what does Catmull mean by "every other year"? Will a sequel will show up every 2-3 years? Or every once in blue moon? Say, 6-7 originals from 2016 to 2020, and then a sequel sometime afterwards followed by 5-7 more originals in a row after that? Kind of a mystery there...

The last excerpt addresses the idea of the Pixar veterans giving first-time directors a shot, a practice that they've been trying recently...

"How do you figure out how to pass the baton onto other people? In some places they don’t do that. When Walt [Disney] died, he didn’t pass the baton to anybody else, and so they went downhill after that. So John and I take very seriously the fact that we need to get people up to the level where they can tell original films."

The attempts to get others outside of the Lasseter-Docter-Stanton-Bird circle to direct films hasn't gone over too, too well in some cases...

After years of not being the lead director on a project, Lee Unkrich helmed Toy Story 3 and he had no major trouble, probably because he co-directed Toy Story 2 and several other Pixar films. But then the ill-fated Newt, Cars 2 and Brave happened...

Newt was going to be sound veteran Gary Rydstrom's feature-length directorial debut, since he had directed the fine Pixar short Lifted. But the film ran into some trouble, apparently the story was a real mess. The project was canceled, and it seems like it'll never see the light of day. Rydstrom is now at Lucasfilm Animation, directing an animated feature.

Brad Lewis, the producer of Ratatouille, was the original director of Cars 2. The film began pre-production sometime around 2008, but he was removed from the director position in October 2010 and  John Lasseter replaced him. This was when sequences were already being animated! That same month, Brenda Chapman was removed from Brave. A really personal project of hers no less! Mark Andrews, who has never directed before at Pixar, replaced her and finished the film. Apparently the change was because of "creative differences", though to many (combined with Chapman's words) that spelt: "Pixar didn't want a woman on board so they kicked her off and replaced her with a man, because they are a sexist boy's club." or "Pixar wanted the film to be more mainstream so they got rid of Chapman and turned her 'art' film into a conventional film."

There is no hard cold evidence of any of that... These two cases could've been Ratatoutille all over again. That film's original director, Jan Pinkava, was fired from the project leaving Brad Bird to take his place. But from many accounts, Pinkava's film was rife with problems. Revised storyreels were presented to the upper brass, but the story didn't seem to gel. Ratatouille turned out to be a masterpiece despite the director change and production problems. Sometimes director changes have to happen for the good of the finished product. Director changes happen elsewhere in the animation industry, too. It's happened with a couple DreamWorks films, Sony's Hotel Transylvania went through six different directors before they got Genndy Tartakovsky on board! To say nothing of many other studios...

It's very possible that Lewis' version of Cars 2 was even worse than what we ended up getting, and that Lasseter did what he could to salvage the mess.  Brave? Again, Chapman's complete film could've had some problems. Also take into consideration that she was working on that film since 2004/2005-ish, and got removed in 2010. She had a long time to work on the project, so maybe things were going along very well for quite a while. Sometimes ideas that seem great on the storyboards may very well fall flat when presented and added to the flow of the story as a whole. Again, we can't assume what the exact reason is, the reason why Pixar removed her from the project. The reason could be anything: They're sexist, they're afraid of letting newcomers direct films, the Brain Trust just wants to keep directing, the story wasn't working, etc., etc. We also can't assume that Pixar is hell-bent on hiring rookies to direct and then firing them because they aren't Brain Trust-worthy. Can we please stop assuming the worst about this studio? Can we please try to look at the bigger picture?

Ed Catmull

New directors are the thing at Pixar now, the whole Cars 2 fiasco excepted. Who ended up directing Brave after Brenda Chapman had to step down from the position? Mark Andrews. Has he directed a feature-length film at Pixar prior to Brave? No.

Who directed Monsters University? Not the director of the first film, Pete Docter. Not Lee Unkrich. Not Andrew Stanton or Lasseter. Dan Scanlon has been the director of that film since Day 1 (we're talking 2007 here!) and he was never replaced with another director.

Next year's The Good Dinosaur is being directed by Bob Peterson, who has never directed a film at Pixar before though he has been a co-director in the past.

Unkrich is getting his second shot at directing with the currently untitled "Dia De Los Muertos" film, and Andrews is going to direct another film. Teddy Newton, director of Pixar's excellent 2010 short Day & Night, has an untitled film in the works with a script that's being penned by Derek Connelly.

Who will direct the other originals? Probably new people, since Docter is busy with Inside Out and Stanton will be directing Finding Dory. Maybe more short film directors will get their chance. Scanlon directed the home media exclusive Cars short Mater and the Ghostlight in 2006 and look where he is now, director of a successful prequel to a Pixar classic! Jan Pinkava made his mark with the short Geri's Game in 1997 and three years later he found himself beginning work on Ratatouille. Rydstrom went from Lifted to Newt. Despite the fact that Pinkava was removed and Rydstrom's film was outright canceled, they still got the directing gig in the first place. Maybe Steve Purcell, Pete Sohn (he's co-directing The Good Dinosaur), Ronnie del Carmen (co-director of Inside Out), Angus MacLane, Enrico Casarosa and Saschka Unseld will get to direct upcoming Pixar films in the far future given their co-directing work and/or shorts. This could all be very, very possible. It's also good to know that both Catmull and Lasseter are taking this new director route very seriously... Contrary to what many may think after what happened with a few films as of late.

What is your take on Ed Catmull's comments? Do you think sequel production won't be as abundant? Do you think Pixar is gung ho about first-time directors? Sound off below!

Uh Oh... Another Sequel?

Looks like Pixar might have another sequel in their pipeline... Or maybe not!

Yes, you read that right. Apparently Bleeding Cool got the word on it earlier today. The excerpt from what Disney CEO Bob Iger said during the stockholders conference that they provided seems to imply that one is indeed happening...

"On the animation front, Pixar continues to create great value for our company too. We are very excited about Monsters University which opens next month. Pixar’s slate of films for the next five years includes fantastic original stories as well as some great sequels to their previous hits. And as we recently announced, we are in production on one of those sequels, Finding Dory, featuring Ellen DeGeneres once again as the voice of Dory, one of the most beloved characters from Finding Nemo which was one of the most popular and profitable movies to date."

So... What will it be? Here, to me, are the three potential candidates.

Toy Story 4: Please no... Given how many times it's been rumored and the fact that the franchise is expanding through shorts/specials, I'm afraid this *might* happen. Unless it's a story about a whole new set of toys unrelated to the Andy's Room gang or a prequel, then I won't be interested. Not in the slightest. I know this may sound biased but... You can't top that finale, you just CAN'T. (Or as Woody would put it, "Can't, can't, caaaaaaaaan't!") It should be a Commandment - "Thou shall not maketh 'Toy Story 4'!"

The Incredibles 2: It'll only happen if Brad Bird wants to do it, and he may not in the far future since he's working hard on Tomorrowland for Disney and presumably something like 1906 afterwards. It's the one Pixar sequel that everyone wants, too. If he says one is happening, I'll be game for it. I trust Mr. Bird!

Cars 3: Very, very plausible since the franchise is huge and ever-expanding now with the DisneyToon-produced Planes series on the way. Also, it wouldn't hurt since Cars 2 got negative reception and started all this "Pixar is dead/dying/taken over by Disney" crap. A third one won't hurt since many view the second one (and the first one to some extent) in a bad light, so people will just separate it from the Pixar pool. I wouldn't mind if this one gets made, because it'll make the bean counters happy meanwhile an original film doesn't possibly get stained with a possibly bad sequel. Totally okay with a Cars 3 happening.

As for the rest of Pixar's films? Nada. A Bug's Life? Forget about it, that'll never happen. Ratatouille - like The Incredibles - was a Brad Bird film and again, a sequel will only happen if he wants to do one. WALL-E and Up? Nope, not by a long shot. Brave? Sure Mark Andrews said they'll do one if they have a good idea, that doesn't mean they'll do it. He has an original project in the works that should be out in theaters after 2017, so no Brave 2.

If it's Cars 3, I'll be fine. A Brad Bird-helmed Incredibles sequel? Also good. If it's Toy Story 4, I'll be upset unless the film gets stellar reviews and is called a masterpiece. I doubt that Pixar would make a fourth one though, because that trilogy is so special. It's also possible that Iger made a mistake, after all he did say that he didn't know of any hand-drawn films that were in development at Walt Disney Animation Studios. Maybe he thought another sequel was in production. Maybe all this will be moot in a matter of days or months, and that it turns out that no Pixar sequel is in the works at all.

What's your take? A mistake? Or is Pixar ramping up another sequel? What do you think it could be? Sound off below!

Mark Andrews' Next Project

An original and talk of a sequel... Pixar news always brings a surprise or two...

Surely you've heard some of the rumblings about Pixarian Mark Andrews yesterday. Mark Andrews, in case you don't know, is one of the directors of Pixar's Brave. In a controversial move during the production of that film, Pixar had fired Brenda Chapman from directing the film, which was a very personal endeavor for her. Andrews, a man who is trenched in Scottish history, was given the job to direct and finish the film in such a short time frame. Andrews has made the rounds quite a bit lately, from talking about what he wants to do at Pixar (and also, "speed" up their production process) to the production history of Brave. He is also working on a new original project for Pixar.

He couldn't say what it's about or what it'll be called, so all we know is that an original film is under his watch. That makes it the studio's fifth original production that's in the works, after The Good Dinosaur, Inside Out, "Dia De Los Muertos" and Teddy Newton's untitled film. I have one theory on this film. Andrews has a very different idea of filmmaking. He is said to not be too fond of most Disney animation, but rather a fan of Japanese anime. Perhaps his new film will be a lot of different from Pixar's past films and perhaps American animated films in general. Maybe he'll essentially make an American "anime" film for the studio. Of course, this is all just speculation. Also, he'll be handling something on his own rather than trying to patch something up that wasn't his from the start. In short, I'm just as excited to hear more about this film as much as Teddy Newton's film.

But the other bit of news concerns a sequel to Brave. However, I think a lot of this Brave sequel business is being blown out of proportion. In the interview, he simply said that Pixar will only do a sequel if there's a good enough story. I for one could do without a Brave follow up. After Finding Dory, I don't want any more Pixar sequels to be honest. I don't hate sequels and I've explained in great detail why I'm not worried about Monsters University or Finding Dory, I just don't want any more Pixar sequels for a long, long while. The other reason why I don't want a Brave sequel is because the first film was Chapman's baby. Having a sequel done without her involvement, since she left Pixar last summer, would just be wrong and would also be a disservice to Chapman. It would also hurt Pixar's image, as the director change alone did enough.

What are your thoughts on Andrews' new original project? What do you think it could be like? Do you think all of this Brave sequel talk is just being blown out of proportion? Or do you think one will actually happen?

Sound off below!

Plane Crazy...

I was one of many who had absolutely no interest in Planes. Planes, in case you don't know, is a feature-length spin-off of the Cars franchise that was produced by DisneyToon Studios; the same animation studio who produced the direct-to-video Disney sequels including the Tinker Bell films. Of course, this was commissioned because the Cars franchise is massive. Of course Disney would want to expand on that... What better way to do that than with aircraft?

Early on, I didn't mind that this film was being made. After all, it wasn't being made by Pixar and it was going straight to home media. If Pixar was making it, then I'd be a bit concerned. But then last year, Disney announced that the film was going to get a theatrical release. I wasn't pleased... Direct-to-video product in cinemas? Bad idea. Plus, since a lot of people can't tell what studio made what, people will think it's a Pixar film and if it's a bad film... Then it would only further all the "Pixar is dying" hoopla. Cars 2 being poorly received and Brave's reception was enough...

I was not okay with any of this... That was until Morgan Stradling of The Rotoscopers reviewed the film, as she had seen a test screening of the film... Apparently it's a pretty decent film!

Yes, you heard that right... A decent film...

Now this doesn't completely change my mind about the film. I'll probably skip it, seeing that it's still a cash grab that's more for the kids than us adults. But after reading the review, I'm thinking that John Lasseter really made sure that this film would be no clunker. Remember, Cars is his baby. He's in love with this universe and idea since he's a car nut. There's nothing wrong with that, and again, I'm one of the few who doesn't consider Cars 2 a horrible film, not even a mediocre one. Lasseter gets a lot of flack for this franchise, but I'm actually glad that he's involved with a film like this.

Why's that? Well Lasseter put the kibosh on the direct-to-video sequels, saving us from monstrosities like The Aristocats II and Dumbo II. But the Tinker Bell franchise got a huge start with the first film in the series, so they inevitably had to make more. I have not seen any of the Tinker Bell films nor do I want to, but I hear that they are a significant cut above all of the previous direct-to-video sequels. Apparently he wants them to be good enough, despite the fact that they are direct-to-video products that are aimed at children more than anything.

Also, since this is part of the world of Cars, it would make sense that Lasseter would be heavily involved. Now you may say, "But Cars 2 was bad." Well, as I said in my defense of Pixar, I think that most of Cars 2's problems were there from the beginning before Lasseter came on board... And if you ask me, I think he may have been too late. Lasseter replaced original director Brad Lewis in 2010, when the film was already being animated! I don't think that he had enough time to improve the story... This sort of thing needs to happen before production begins on the film! Ratatouille, anyone? Also, he directed the film from an iPad. So he had very little time to "improve" the film and he could only do it via technology. This is why I think Cars 2 is the problematic film that it is.

Anyways, maybe Lasseter put some passion and effort into this project? Maybe he made sure that it was more than just a cash grab... Who knows, but this review is a good sign... But we don't know how other critics will react to the film.

None of this means that I'm all in support of the film. I'm just glad that it isn't a Pixar production, because the franchise can still make Disney happy without having the Emeryville folks involved. Pixar can continue doing what they want to do, while Disney can have other outlets continue the Cars (or pretty soon, Autos) franchise. But do they need to come to theaters? Personally, I think this should be the only one and all future spin-offs should go straight to home media.

Let's just put it this way... I'm conflicted on all of this. Sure this will come, make money and please fans and children. Pixar didn't work on it, so animation fans need not worry about the studio's future or image... But I just hope that the non-Pixar side of this franchise doesn't become a theatrical thing. It just doesn't sit right with me for some reason. However, after reading this review, I won't be surprised if the film happens to get anything better than the reception that Cars 2 received.

Are you okay with Planes being a theatrical release? Or not? Do you think that it could be a decent film? Or do you think it's going to be a disaster?

Sound off below!

A Suggestion to Disney Home Entertainment

Next week, fans and consumers will be able to own three Disney animated films on Blu-ray for the first time in stunning high definition: The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Mulan and Brother Bear. Of course, they are going to be released the same way The Fox and the Hound and Pocahontas were on Blu-ray. They're being packaged with their direct-to-video sequels and each release will be billed as a "2 Movie Collection".

Of course, you all know how I feel about this business model for the not-so-successful Disney animated films. People are split. Lots of fans are fine with this and will buy the sets no matter what. Other fans refuse to purchase the titles because they feel that including the direct-to-video sequel cheapens the importance of the original and is overall insulting. I won't go any further, because I've already ranted about this time and time again.

I don't speak for the majority of Disney fans. Again, they have their purchasing preferences, as I am no different. However, I think what should be done could work for both fans and those who want to own the direct-to-video sequels alongside the originals. I understand that parents buy these sets up for their kids, and having the sequel on there is convenient for them. However, many fans object to the idea of Disney putting it on the same set (and same disc) as the original. Right now, this way of releasing these films on Blu-ray has Disney fans divided. Rightfully so, if you ask me.

So here's my ultimate suggestion to Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment...

A) Release [insert film here] on its own. No sequel included. Instead, pack this release with all the bonus features you can afford or port from earlier editions. Give it a nice slipcover, include a DVD copy as always, and sell it for the usual price. Make it no different from your typical home media release of a Disney animated film.

B) Release a double pack of [insert film here] and its direct-to-video sequel. But this time, don't put many bonus features on it. Put very little on there. The set should also include the 2 DVDs for both the original and the sequel. Also, don't give it any snazzy packaging. No slipcover is necessary. Sell it like one of those budget Blu-ray releases; you know - the ones that have two or three movies on them and are called "Double Feature" or "Double Pack". They also usually have decent packaging, nothing crazy. That way, you can sell it for a very good price and satisfy consumers.

If Disney does that with every other non-Diamond Edition animated feature that happens to have a direct-to-video sequel, then it will be a win-win situation for everyone. Fans can own the original on its own complete with bonuses, while parents and consumers looking for a great value can buy the budget "double feature" release.

In all honesty, I believe this would be the best of both worlds for fans and those who are buying these films on Blu-ray.

3 Out Of The Gate (Make That 4)

Looks like Disney will be releasing more and more of their animated classics on Blu-ray next year! The week after Wreck-It Ralph comes to Blu-ray (March 5th), three Disney animated films will be released!

What are they releasing? The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Mulan and Brother Bear!

Oh... They are being packaged with their crummy direct-to-video sequels. Bummer...

But wait... That may not be... Blu-ray.com has two entries listed for each of the three films: One that's a double pack with the sequel, and one that doesn't come with the sequel. See for yourself.

If that's true, then that means Disney must know that a good amount of their fans really objected to this "package it with the direct-to-video sequel" trend that began last year with the Blu-ray release of The Fox and the Hound. I know I was one of them, and many others were appalled.

Also, look at the cover for The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Notice how it doesn't list the sequel or show any of the characters from that said sequel anywhere on the cover, yet Mulan and Brother Bear's covers do? Why that one only? I guess it could be because the sequel really clashes with the mood and tone of the first film. Maybe, maybe not.

Only time will tell. The trailer and print advertisement for Mulan (which can be found in the Blu-ray set of Finding Nemo) seem to imply that they'll be released separately. If Disney goes through with releasing the film on its own and the double-pack as a separate release, you can call me one happy fan.

Which of these Disney classics will you be buying on Blu-ray?

Update: Atlantis: The Lost Empire has also been confirmed for a March 12th release. Oddly enough, both this film and Brother Bear were initially planned for an autumn release this year, but were quietly removed from the schedule. When they announced the March release of Brother Bear, I was wondering, "Now where's Atlantis?" Lo and behold, it's coming, but again, it'll be a two-movie collection with its awful direct-to-video sequel/failed TV series made into a movie.

Endless Possibilities

Disney wants it. Director Rich Moore is enthusiastic about it. Fans want it, too. What do they want?

A sequel to Wreck-It Ralph...

If Disney will approve of a sequel to Rich Moore's video game adventure comedy, it'll be a rare moment where Walt Disney Animation Studios will actually produce a theatrical sequel to one of their animated films. In their 89 years of existence, only two sequels have been produced: The Rescuers Down Under and Fantasia 2000, though calling the latter a "sequel" per se, is debatable. You could also argue that Winnie the Pooh is a sequel to The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, but I've never seen it officially listed as a sequel to the 1977 film.

Out of all the canon films, Wreck-It Ralph begs for a sequel since the first one took place in an arcade and three game worlds. Like Toy Story, there's so many other worlds outside of Litwak's to explore, from console games to massive online games. Moore has made some comments on a sequel over the last few weeks, but recently, he mentioned that he wants Mario to make an appearance this time.

Mario did not appear in Wreck-It Ralph because the team felt that him making a cameo appearance wasn't enough, not because it would've cost too much to include him. If Moore does want the famed Italian plumber in the film, that means that he'll have to have a bigger role. Perhaps he, and other licensed characters, could play a more important role in the plot in the sequel. Some were hoping that Q*Bert, Sonic and the other characters featured in the marketing would have good-sized roles in the story, but they obviously didn't.

Moore also talked about a game world that was completely scrapped from the film, a Grand Theft Auto/Sims parody called Extreme EZ Livin' 2. It being included in a sequel was alluded to, so maybe that'll make a comeback. Again, there so much they can tackle in a sequel and throw in some witty satire for good measure.

So if Wreck-It Ralph 2 is a go, I'll root for it, especially with Moore returning to the helm. Rarely do I encourage sequels, but this one has a lot of potential.

The Sequel Problem

Not too long ago, a trailer for the upcoming Blu-ray release of Disney's Mulan has made the waves. Notice anything... Different about it?



The trailer states "Also available - Mulan II", implying that the film's direct to video sequel from 2004 is getting a separate release around the same time.

Disney's home entertainment division has recently been pairing their not-so-successful animated films with their direct-to-video sequels on Blu-ray, without giving consumers a choice to buy the first film on its own. This has angered several Disney fans, including myself, while others don't see the big deal about it. I have ranted about this before, so I'll keep the flames at bay. This trailer does make me wonder though, is Disney going to do away with the bundles? Or are they going us consumers a choice?

Don Hahn's comments on his Facebook have contradicted this, as he confirmed that the upcoming Blu-ray releases of The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Atlantis: The Lost Empire will be packaged with the sequels. But... Why would Mulan be an exception? Why would the trailer say "also available"? To me, that says it'll be available separately. If Mulan II was in fact part of the set, wouldn't the trailer excitedly show clips from both and say "Mulan and Mulan II, coming to Disney Blu-ray"?

Mulan and Mushu don't approve of low quality
direct-to-video sequels...

Personally, if they were to axe the sequel bundles, I'd be satisfied. The decision to package The Fox and the Hound and Pocahontas with the dreadful direct to video sequels caused quite a backlash, and rightfully so. Maybe Disney got wind of this? Who knows, but this trailer is very vague about the whole sequel issue. Maybe we'll find out later come next year...

Only Human...

With all the reports about a Finding Nemo sequel (from where I currently stand, it's still "half confirmed", I still want to see that "interview" that the LA Times mentioned) swimming around, more and more news outlets and writers are essentially getting more fodder for their "Pixar is dead" arguments, a disgusting trend that picked up steam when Cars 2 premiered last year. Just take a look at a passage from this recent article on Indie Wire:

Let's face it, the lamp was going through some tough times in the last two years. During production of Cars 2, a lot of talented folks have left the studio. That same year, Brave had a director change which garnered a lot of controversy within the animation community and the press. Though Brenda Chapman was fired from the project over creative differences, the press had a field day and soon you had people left and right calling Pixar a "sexist" studio, a boys' club that wasn't going to allow a woman to direct a film. A change of directors on a film isn't uncommon, especially in the animation industry. Still, it was a blemish on their reputation, because supposedly they were gods amongst men.

Cars 2 opened last year and was the first Pixar film to get generally negative reviews. Immediately, we kept hearing "RIP Pixar" and "Pixar is dead". These may be simple comments on sites, but it shows that some people are now convinced, with Monsters University and a Nemo sequel on the horizon, that Pixar has stopped being a great studio. Ignorant of the original films that are coming out between 2013 and 2017, these people most likely want to see the seemingly-invincible studio fall. This is a terrible way of thinking, and for many reasons, and now we have articles... Articles... That are also chiming in.

Brave's positive but not-so-enthusiastic critical reception didn't make matters any better, despite being a bigger success than Cars 2 and garnering significantly better word of mouth. But one must remember, Brave went through a director change and a lot of other problems were going on at the studio. This kind of thing happens. Remember Ratatouille? We're lucky that Ratatouille, despite the director change and production problems, turned out to be an excellent film. It's just a rare moment when a studio turns out eleven films that all garnered good critical reception. You know how many studios would want that track record?

Perhaps their hot streak drew jealousy. But why be jealous of an entity whose #1 purpose is to make entertainment? To give audiences something to enjoy? It's not like they did anything to them personally. Why rip them apart? They are a movie studio, not someone whose treating you like you are their child. Back to Brave though, the film still got good reviews. The critical reception was on the same level as the first Cars. It's amazing how there wasn't much "Pixar is dead" hoopla when Cars came out. Ratatouille, WALL-E and Up were highly anticipated. Toy Story 3 wasn't met with much skepticism either. So now that Pixar tripped up on one film, a sequel no less, now we can be skeptical? I don't understand that. We haven't seen Monsters University yet, nor have we even heard any early test screening reviews. We have no idea what the next batch of films will turn out to be. They could be solid gold winners, so why doubt that?

Let's just put it another way. Cars 2 was one film that happened to be a critical clunker, though some argue that Cars 2 wasn't as bad as the critics made it out to be. I personally thought it was a passable entry, but a type of film I don't want to see coming from Pixar. Guess what? I forgive them and quite frankly, I thought Brave was a wonderful film despite a few little flaws. That's okay though, if Monsters University is a film I end up giving a B+ to or something, I won't mind. Pixar is a studio, not a bunch of perfection gods. No one is, and to expect them to keep making critically acclaimed films without ever making one dud is ridiculous and dreadfully unrealistic.

Remember Disney's output after World War II began? Walt Disney couldn't launch something like Alice in Wonderland or Peter Pan into production just yet, they had to resort to making films that were less costly. Also, they lost a lot of animators after the strike in 1941. Two big blows to the soaring studio, and to their reputation. The results were a mixed bag. Some of the package features are considered classics, such as The Three Caballeros. Others aren't, like Saludos Amigos, Make Mine Music and Fun & Fancy Free. Were people proclaiming that Disney had died because the next batch of films were essentially compilations of short films?

Disney eventually made a grand comeback with Cinderella, but that was followed by Alice in Wonderland, which bombed both critically and commercially. Then, Peter Pan and Lady and the Tramp were smash hits and are considered classics today. Sleeping Beauty may have bombed, but it was the second highest-grossing film of the year and is also well-loved. Alice in Wonderland got an audience after Walt's passing and remains a popular title. Also, Disney turned out some clunkers in the 1970s and 1980s and then... We all knew what happened next. After the Renaissance, they made some more clunkers, and look, they're back on track... Bolt, The Princess and the Frog and Tangled, anyone?

Are the same "Pixar is dead" people going to reject any great films they make in the future with an "it's not the same" attitude? Will they refuse to accept anything post-Cars 2 that turns out to be a masterpiece? Given Brave's good-but-not-great reception, maybe, unless a Cars-level critical performance is not enough to satisfy them.

Time to get a grip, Pixar is only human. The people there never acted like they were on top of the world. That's all a product of certain individuals' mindsets, not Pixar's staff. It's great that they had eleven smash hits in a row, and look, Brave is sitting right alongside those very films. Don't let one film and studio politics convince you that the studio is no more.

Back to the Sea

It seems as if the sequel to Andrew Stanton's Pixar classic has been confirmed, just in time for the film's 3D theatrical re-release. Though I'm not really putting much credence in that article (where is that "interview" where Stanton confirmed a Finding Nemo sequel?), I'll still offer my thoughts on the subject.

Since Toy Story 3, Pixar has done quite a couple of sequels all within five years. This was certainly unusual for the company, as many people from the studio have said that they only go through with sequels if they have a great story. Prior to Toy Story 3, Pixar only made one sequel and that was it. Toy Story 3 was fantastic, and definitely lived up to the first two films and some minds, even surpassed them. There was no reason to be skeptical either, since Pixar was behind it after the Disney-Pixar merger and unlike the Hollywood business model, it wasn't coming right off of the success of Toy Story 2. The people at Pixar had a genuinely good idea, while also having to overwrite the potential bomb that Disney's Circle 7 studio has in the making.

As I've said before, Pixar making more and more sequels isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as they are great films. Again, I am not supportive of more sequels, but we don't know until we see them. Look at their upcoming slate. We're still getting three originals, originals which sound like game-changers for the animation medium and the whole idea of family films. People have become skeptical because of the sequel to their anthropomorphic automobiles film, but I still reject that mindset because Monsters University could turn out to be a masterpiece for all I care. Even if I give the film a B or something, I still won't be shattered. Brave didn't get the A+ I usually I give to Pixar films, but so what? They can't just make A+ films for the rest of eternity, or A-grade films, that's just ridiculous to expect.

So... Finding Nemo 2...

Personally, I don't want it. If it turns out to be an excellent film, I will gladly eat crow. I'm not saying it's going to be a surefire disaster, it's just that I don't believe there needs to be a sequel. It all just screams unnecessary. On the other hand, I think Monsters University was necessary, since it will tell us more about Mike, Sulley and the monster world itself. It's nice to see their past, instead of having them go on a new adventure. Monsters, Inc. was a film you could NOT do a sequel to in my eyes. I have the same feelings towards Finding Nemo.

Unless it isn't "Finding" Nemo this time around. Maybe it's going to be about something else. If they announce that the plot will be about Marlin losing him again, I won't be happy. However, if it's something different, I'll have some hope. Though Toy Story's sequels had the "get back to Andy's house" structure, the three films were all unique. Cars 2 wasn't anything like its predecessor. Monsters University is obviously going to have a much different plot than Monsters, Inc., so they may just come up with a new idea for this film. From all the rumblings we've heard, the Brain Trust at Pixar loves the idea. We didn't hear any of that when Cars 2 was in production, and we've heard that the Brain Trust is all for the Monsters University story.

Still, I just think one doesn't need to be made. To me, a lot of great films are unique on their own, especially animated classics. Personally I don't want to hear that sequels to any of the post-Cars films are being considered, either. The big question is: Why sequels?

Think of the Disney studio, after World War II had such a terrible affect on them. Did Walt do sequels to his beloved films to stay afloat? No, he didn't. Sure, characters from earlier films appeared in the package anthology features (i.e. Jiminy Cricket in Fun & Fancy Free), but he didn't do Bambi 2 or Snow White 2 to keep his studio alive in the 1950s. He kept tackling new stories, and Walt Disney Animation Studios has a history of staying far away from sequels despite how lucrative their classics are. It's telling that the only sequels Disney ever did were to Fantasia and The Rescuers.

Which is was I don't believe Pixar is doing sequels to just keep the business going. It'd be easy to say they've sold out, they're now just all about the money, etc. I don't think so. Toy Story 3 was fantastic, Cars 2 was gap filler (I still believe Bob Iger coaxed John Lasseter into doing it, rather than Lasseter actually having a brand new idea) that none of the Brain Trust seemed to care about. Monsters University has potential... But this does mean that it's okay for Pixar to just do more sequels?

It's a tough issue for me at the moment, because a great Finding Nemo sequel would be a real miracle. At the same time however, I just don't really want one.

What is your take on this? Do you believe that a sequel to Finding Nemo is necessary? Or do you think it's not a good idea? Do you believe that Andrew Stanton and co.'s new idea will work? Or do you think it's just a way to get people excited? Sound off!