Lasseter wanted Disney to get out of the DTV game so that Pixar could without competition...?
"Hoju" posted in that site's comment section:
Quote:
So, why not exploit the movie nobody really cares about - and that children love - rather than risk "ruining" one of their classics with a follow-up.
The more money Cars-related stuff makes, they can finance more stuff along the lines of Wall-E, Up, etc. Riskier more original stuff that won't move merchandise (ala Ratatouille).
That's a pretty interesting point of view. I personally love
Cars, but this is a little much. With the never-ending Pixar sequels/spinoffs (and I'm actually fine with the sequels) and the Disney live-action remakes, I'm getting worried for Disney.
How much say does Lasseter have? I mean, if Bob Iger says to do it, then he has to?
PatrickvD wrote:
they had a joke on American Dad where Stan mentioned the new Pixar movie "Clothes"... he added that 'John Ratzenberger plays a tie'
we're really only two film away from that becoming a reality. Imagine the clothes they could sell. "wear your favorite characters from the film!"
That's really funny.
estefan wrote:
Hmm, interesting. I guess Lasseter needs to give the direct-to-video Disney department something to do besides Tinkerbell spin-offs.
Well, Pixar Canada isn't making Tinker Bell movies...
Kyle wrote:
Pixar's track record should earn them the benefit of the doubt, at the very least. Come on guys, how many times do they have to get people worried about something their doing, only to prove the doubters wrong before we finally catch on and realize they know what their doing? We go through this nearly every time something new is anounced. its a cycle.
If it was just one thing, then I think that people would have just as much faith as they usually do in Pixar, but with a lot of seemingly strange decisions as of late, people are just wondering what's going on at Pixar.
Neal wrote:
I'm not skeptic that it will be bad. It probably won't be. And I had a feeling the Canadian studio would be doing stuff like this.
It's just so... unnecessary! Especially after Lasseter shut down Disney sequels.
This. (Wow, I actually said that. Haha.) Absolutely this. I mean, the point of this probably is:
a) to sell toy planes (duh)
b) to give something for the Pixar Canada studio to do
Kyle wrote:
Entertainment in general is unnecessary. but if the quality is good enough, by the time the credits roll we feel like it was worth while and meaningful in some way. Either it made us laugh, cry whatever.
But Pixar are the ones who always say that they'll only make a movie if the story is worth telling. Can you honestly say that the motive to sell toys wasn't the main reasoning behind
Planes? I mean, really? I think that giving Pixar Canada something to do is a valid point, but still, they could've come up with a more creative, more...original? idea...
Luke wrote:
The fact is, if it was good enough to go to theaters without diluting the Pixar name, it would. Otherwise, it's not and even if it's on the order of the Tinker Bell movies or better, do we really want less than Grade A product from Pixar?
Excellent point. Again, going back to what I already said about Pixar saying in the past that they'd only make films that NEED to have their stories told.
Planes...I'm thinking not so much. I mean, what was the MAIN point behind Pixar Canada? To make shorts to exsisting Pixar movies? I don't even know if Pixar Canada was so necessary.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Hopefully this won't do anything to taint Pixar's image with the greater populace. Say what you like about Pixar, but I'd hate to see them go through what WDAS has often had to go through during the past decade or so.
- Ichabod
That's a little bit of an exaggeration.
Although, I am VERY sick of seeing Cars toys and shorts when I'm at Target/TRU or watching television. And I just recalled they're getting a whole land in California in a few years. Who knew placing eyes and a mouth on cars is a big money maker?
