Disney building a unit to Produce Pixar Sequals

[Golter]

Sounds like a good thing to me..




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6896018/

RPT-Disney building a unit to make Pixar sequel moviesBy Peter Henderson

Updated: 4:52 p.m. ET Feb. 1, 2005ORLANDO, Fla. - The Walt Disney Co. is building a new animation unit to create feature film sequels to the hits it made with Pixar Animation Studios, starting with a "Toy Story 3" feature film due by 2008, studio Chairman Dick Cook told Reuters Tuesday.

advertisement

Fans have wondered for years whether Disney would make the next "Toy Story" as a straight-to-DVD project, like follow-ups to Disney hits such as "Lion King."

But Cook said it would be a theatrical release.

Disney has the right to make sequels to films from the Pixar relationship, with which Pixar could cooperate or not.

Pixar has not shown interest thus far, but Disney is moving ahead with plans of its own.

Disney's "Toy Story" sequel will be built at a new division in Glendale, California, near the feature animation division's headquarters in Burbank, Cook said.

"It would be another unit," he said, adding that Disney was still deciding how many animators it would hire.

"They'll have individual projects in there, using the same technology and the same infrastructure that we have at the main location in feature animation, and it will primarily be doing sequels to Disney/Pixar films," he said.

Speaking to Wall Street analysts who were meeting with company executives at Walt Disney World, Cook said that feature animation planned to produce one major film each year, for release around summer or winter holidays.

Cook said the Pixar sequel planned for 2008 would not be the main Disney animated feature for that year.

Disney, best known for its hand-drawn style films, also showed analysts previews of "Chicken Little," it's first computer-animated feature.

Disney's feature animation division has been under fire in recent years as Disney cut jobs and restructured, turning to computer animation in the shadow of Pixar. The two studios will part ways after one more jointly produced film, "Cars."

"We're not falling on our swords anymore," Cook told analysts. "This is a new beginning for feature animation."

One investor gave Disney credit for putting feature animation back on its feet with "Chicken Little" and other original work that was previewed at the meeting.

"Not everything is going to be wonderful, but my guess is this will be a credible departure from dependence on the Pixar situation," media investor Hal Vogel told Reuters at the conference.

[OnWithTheShow]

Unoriginal Jerks

[Peter Pirate]

Now, now Mr. Show, shouldn't Disney capitalize on the possibilities given them buy their relationship to Pixar, especially if a new relationship is not established? Is it not possible that 'Incredibles' deserves a sequel?

The real point ("unoriginal jerks") is whether this remains true or not. 'Lilo and Stitch' was original, 'Brother Bear' was original and 'Chicken Little' sure looks original. As long as emphasis is given on new creativity (I'm not saying it was or currently is, I'm saying if it is going forward) wouldn't Disney be remiss in not exploting certain avenues that fall in their lap?

Besides, we should give the benefit of doubt to what is currently going on and I see 'Chicken Little' as a big hit (with the help of no one), therefore perhaps they do have (a) vision.
pirate:

[gapere]

I don't know. Making sequels of your own stuff is one thing. Making sequels off someone else's stuff is sorta......unoriginal :confused3

[BRERALEX]

They'll manage to diminish the two brands at once.

[crusader]

Way too extreme Breralex.

It is unoriginal, and I'm not sure it should be produced.

[SnackyStacky]

I could ALMOST see where this might be construed as something good, BUT...

Prior record shows that Disney is only too happy to go with what's "safe". Buzz, Woody, Jesse, and Bullseye all have a loyal following, and the spreadsheets show that. Instead of being original, they're happy to follow those spreadsheets that will lead them to profits.

I'm not sure that Disney realizes that you can have too much of a good thing.

I'm witholding judgement until I actually see the thing (IF I actually see the thing), but I gotta say that the whole idea of a third Toy Story just doesn't sit well with me.

I wish that Disney would take TIME between their releases. Let the creatives be CREATIVE, and give us something that would wow us - be it hand-drawn, or computer animated.

[KNWVIKING]

..... it all boils down to how they do it. If Toy 3 is as good as T1 & T2, then I don't care if they make T4,5 & 6. Why does the Toy Story have end just because there have been two movies ?

As usual I'm in the "let's give them the benifit of the doubt & see how it ends up " camp.

[DancingBear]

C'mon guys, don't you think Job$ would be jumping on the chance to make sequels to these movies if he owned all of the rights?

[SnackyStacky]

..... it all boils down to how they do it. If Toy 3 is as good as T1 & T2, then I don't care if they make T4,5 & 6. Why does the Toy Story have end just because there have been two movies ?

As usual I'm in the "let's give them the benifit of the doubt & see how it ends up " camp.

I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. It's harder to do that COMPLETELY because of their track record. Remember...this is OUT of Pixar's hands and in Disney's hands - the folks who brought you such forgettable theatrical-release sequels as Jungle Book 2, and Return to Neverland.

BUT, I do care if they make too many sequels for a few reasons:

1.) It really does cheapen the brand in my opinion to contentedly sit on past achievements. Sequels are fine if they're done tastefully, or designed to be part of a series (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, the Scream movies...) but when you get into producing 3, 4, 5, 6, 7s.....that's too much. If the original plot was not designed to extend that far it's difficult to effectively produce something that's worth any time or money. (notice I said difficult - not impossible)

2.) There are SUCH creative people at Disney. At least there were. I don't know how many are left - but I really think they're capable of creating some wonderful NEW movies - with new plots, new characters, new music, and new art. I feel somewhat robbed that we're not getting to see those new movies.

Sure, out of Toy Story 2 came "When Somebody Loved Me", Jesse, the Prospector, and Bullseye - and those are great characters, and the plot was effective, and not forced. But I've had my fill of the whole Toy Story idea. I'm ready for something new.

I guess to sum up, I'm against the principles behind a 3rd Toy Story installment, but I'm not saying that it will be a flop.

Does that make sense?

[Golter]

Sequals can be good if done right. Shrek 2 was very successful. And they are making Shrek 3 and 4. This needs to be a complimentary department to original features. They are leaving money on the table if they dont make these sequals. I applaud them for doing it this way, versus letting another already established unit produce them.

It may not work, but I have a feeling it will. As long as they are done right, I say do it.

[crusader]

I wish that Disney would take TIME between their releases. Let the creatives be CREATIVE, and give us something that would wow us - be it hand-drawn, or computer animated.

Well said. But how much time?

My main problem with this varies.

One issue is timing. Animated feature films and Disney aren't congruent today. It'll take more than a few years to re-establish what they've outsourced which really needs to be done independent of the sequel. I'd rather they utilize their resources more productively right now.

[BRERALEX]

"They'll have individual projects in there, using the same technology and the same infrastructure that we have at the main location in feature animation, and it will primarily be doing sequels to Disney/Pixar films," he said.

And it will primarily be doing sequels to Disney/Pixar films.

To me the Disney brand has already diminished and this quote worried me in the sense that it would look bad on Pixar.

[raidermatt]

C'mon guys, don't you think Job$ would be jumping on the chance to make sequels to these movies if he owned all of the rights?

No, based on his actions thus far, I do not.

But consdering his company is the creative talent behind the original films, certainly he has more of a basis (and a greater chance of success) to make the sequels.

Way too extreme Breralex.
You're probably right. I doubt they will really hurt the Pixar name no matter what they produce. The public is pretty well educated now with regard to who is making these films. Far different than 10 years ago.

No, they will likely just continue to tarnish the Disney name, barring a significant creative turnaround.

...shouldn't Disney capitalize on the possibilities given them buy their relationship to Pixar, especially if a new relationship is not established? Is it not possible that 'Incredibles' deserves a sequel?
Should they? Well, if we are trying to get them to be the real Disney, then no, they shouldn't be.
Deserve a sequel? Again, no. Its just a way to capitalize on a commodity, which in and of itself is not inherently a problem. Its just that when that becomes too big a portion of the focus, which it has, then it becomes a huge problem.

Besides, we should give the benefit of doubt to what is currently going on and I see 'Chicken Little' as a big hit (with the help of no one), therefore perhaps they do have (a) vision.
There is no reason why we *should* give them the benefit of the doubt. In fact, there is plenty of evidence why we shouldn't. Besides, regardless of what we nerds do, the main point is the public no longer gives Disney made animated films the benefit of the doubt. Unlike Pixar...

So let's hold off on praising their potential vision until they do something besides produce a trailer that some people enjoyed.

[DancingBear]

No, based on his actions thus far, I do not.Not sure what you mean by that. Job$ wasn't opposed to doing sequels per se, he just didn't want to do them unless they got him out of the Disney deal faster.

[Planogirl]

Disney will only make themselves look bad. If their sequels are inferior to Pixar's work then it will become crystal clear to the less-interested public that Pixar is the company with the creativity. If the sequels are good then it will still look like Pixar is the good company because Pixar originally came up with these ideas.

But then I don't have a lot of faith in Chicken Little. I hope that I'm wrong.

[raidermatt]

Not sure what you mean by that. Job$ wasn't opposed to doing sequels per se, he just didn't want to do them unless they got him out of the Disney deal faster.
Which to me means that just being able to make a few bucks off of the sequels isn't enough of a motivation for him to devote resources to it. If it were, he'd have been happy to make the sequels even if they didn't count.

I'll grant that it might be a different story if he had complete independence and control, but I'm convinced that at the least, he is less likely to focus much effort on the "capitalize on the franchise" game, as compared to Disney.

He seems to at least have the priorities in order.

[deltachi8]

Sequals work if they are a good movie. I dont think i end up with a better or worse feeling of the original because of how a sequal comes off.

Perhapps the worst sequal ever made was Caddyshack 2. However, i love the original as much as ever. I just choose not to wacth the 2nd one.

[Peter Pirate]

Caddyshack II was pathetic...But equally pathetic was Weekend at Bernies II.

Luckily even Return to Neverland isn't in this category!
pirate:

[DancingBear]

Which to me means that just being able to make a few bucks off of the sequels isn't enough of a motivation for him to devote resources to it. If it were, he'd have been happy to make the sequels even if they didn't count.To me, it means that he wanted to get out of the Disney deal ASAP, so he could keep all the bucks, rather than sharing with Disney. My point is we really won't know until the post-Disney era begins.

[Peter Pirate]

I agree with you DB, I don't think he has any more integrity than Mike and it's ALWAYS all about money. To be sure Stevie has been successful with the innovative PIXAR, but it's still an infant and though they were able to exploit a new technology their legacy is still being written...Also they have yet to experience failure...But they will eventually and then it will be interesting.
pirate:

[raidermatt]

It really has nothing to do with integrity, though. Its just business philosophy.

I'm not saying Jobs wouldn't make sequels to make money because he's a higher quality of person. Further, I'm not even saying its not all about the money.

I'm just saying that when compared to Disney, he has a different idea about how one makes money. I believe he has a better understanding of the importance of maintaining and growing the value of his brand. But who knows? Maybe as the temptation to make the quick buck grew, he would eventually give in. But on the relativity scale, I just can't see much evidence that he's as far down the continuum as those running Disney.

To be sure Stevie has been successful with the innovative PIXAR, but it's still an infant and though they were able to exploit a new technology their legacy is still being written...
All true enough, but its the way that they exploited the technology that is key. They used it as a tool to tell great stories, and have kept the priority straight.

Again, that doesn't relate to integrity so much as to business philosophy.

Also they have yet to experience failure...But they will eventually and then it will be interesting.

Fair enough, but again, with their philosophy, I like their chances of rebouding from a failure moreso than if they didn't "get it".

[Plus4206]

Ever wonder if Jobs operates Pixar differently then ME runs Disney because it is his company ? Kind of the way Walt ran his ? IMO it's more personal. Yes Jobs wants to make money, but is he more interested in protecting his "offspring" so to speak ? Maybe I'm not making any sense.

[Peter Pirate]

Yes, I agree Plus. Plus (pun intended) Steve (as majority owner) gets to do EXACTLY what he wants to do / feels is right, just like Walt did in the day. Eisner has never had that option...Not to say that had he that option he'd be capable of acting 'Walt like' but the fact is it would be much harder to be 'Walt like' in the running of such a huge public company. It's a bit like comparing apples and mice perhaps?
pirate:

[abeyst]

I had mixed feelings when I heard about the new animation unit. I was happy that it was finally coming back to Disney. I was not thrilled when I thought that the movies they make may turn out to be like all the sequel flops they've released in the past.

Anyone can make a sequel, or even a brand new movie. It's the creativity and desire of the animators and writers that make the movie great. I hope they keep that in mind.

[raidermatt]

Eisner has never had that option...Not to say that had he that option he'd be capable of acting 'Walt like' but the fact is it would be much harder to be 'Walt like' in the running of such a huge public company. It's a bit like comparing apples and mice perhaps?
There's some truth to what you are saying, but its only a small piece of what's going on. For Eisner's first 10 years, he certainly did not have the power run the company at his whim.

Thankfully, there was Frank Wells, as well (pun intended) as other strong pre '84 executives. But for much of the last 10 years, Eisner has indeed had probably as large a level of control as anyone could ever hope to have.

If Walt had a fully loaded 6-shooter, Eisner had 5 rounds. He certainly couldn't be as autocratic as Walt could, but he's been close enough that if he really was trying to do Walt-like things, we'd all know it.

But sure, if he had been trying to implement his Walt-like visions, only to be sometimes stymied by the oppressive system, I could cut him some slack.

Its an interesting hypothetical, but given what we have come to learn about Eisner over the years, it really is nothing more than that... a hypothetical.

[Plus4206]

To add to the original point I was trying to make, I don't think anyone can run a company in the same manner as the company founder. People like Walt & Steve have a vision for their company that will never be as crystal clear to anyone else.

Obviously ME is more concerned with his image in the eyes of Wall Street then Walt ever was - and it shows in the way he has run Disney the last 10 years or so.

Jobs isn't that obseced with WS yet. IMO he's on a mission with Pixar that he and only he will ever fully understand. To me, that's very Walt-like. That's one reason I'm not terribly optomistic about ME's future replacement.