DVDizzy Forum

After watching the video, I think it was just a total like, I got caught off guard kind of moment. The interviewer slips it in totally randomly at the last second and Tom looks kind of like "WTF? Uh... Yeah, yeah, I think so... Sounds good to me"

Kyle wrote:I kinda wish they would just move forward with a tv series. It would give them more freedom than a series of shorts, and yet not have the pressure of a theatrical release. This kind of thing would have been unheard of 10 years ago, but I think we have progressed to the point where this could be feasible. And if its bad, well its just a tv series and fans can consider it non canon if they want. This way they could keep the franchise going and their reputation more or less in tact. as in tact as it can be at least after Cars 2.

It's thanks to Pixar itself that we get ten sequels for every CGI family film these days. Back in the 1990's and early 00's, sequels were popular for live-action films (thanks mainly to George Lucas and Hitchcock, the creator of the slasher, inadvertently), but sequels for animated films were usually of laughable quality and released only direct-to-video. The Rescuers Down Under was the first serious attempt to make an animated sequel, and when it wasn't a success for Disney, Eisner and his cohorts made sure sequels were never to be released in theatres again.

However, after the success of Toy Story, the imbeciles in charge of Disney ordered Pixar to make a sequel, expecting the same mediocre quality of DAC sequels; but when the artistically-inclined Pixar made something arguably superior to the original, it was released in theatres and was a huge success just like the original.

This influenced other movie studios to permantely turn to CGI (i.e. Dreamworks) as well as to influence them into thinking sequels to CGI films would be successful (again, i.e. Dreamworks). And so we've had four Shrek films with a spin-off coming up, two Madagascar films with a third one coming up, two Kung-Fu Panda films with a third one coming up, two Cars films with a third one coming up, three Ice Age films with a fourth one coming up and three Toy Story movies with, it appears, a fourth one coming up.

Here's the video in question:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13923988


Go to the 2:46 mark.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Pixar has made a perfect trilogy. They're mad to be tempting fate like this. I didn't have a bad feeling about Cars 2 or Monster's University, but now I have to throw in the towel and say that Pixar are going cheap On top of Cars 2 being shelled, there are plans for a fourth instalment to be added to a trilogy that really doesn't need to become a quadrilogy (has a perfect quadrilogy ever been made before?) I'm starting to feel that they're going down the Dreamworks line

Dr Frankenollie wrote:It's thanks to Pixar itself that we get ten sequels for every CGI family film these days. Back in the 1990's and early 00's, sequels were popular for live-action films (thanks mainly to George Lucas and Hitchcock, the creator of the slasher, inadvertently), but sequels for animated films were usually of laughable quality and released only direct-to-video. The Rescuers Down Under was the first serious attempt to make an animated sequel, and when it wasn't a success for Disney, Eisner and his cohorts made sure sequels were never to be released in theatres again.

However, after the success of Toy Story, the imbeciles in charge of Disney ordered Pixar to make a sequel, expecting the same mediocre quality of DAC sequels; but when the artistically-inclined Pixar made something arguably superior to the original, it was released in theatres and was a huge success just like the original.

This influenced other movie studios to permantely turn to CGI (i.e. Dreamworks) as well as to influence them into thinking sequels to CGI films would be successful (again, i.e. Dreamworks). And so we've had four Shrek films with a spin-off coming up, two Madagascar films with a third one coming up, two Kung-Fu Panda films with a third one coming up, two Cars films with a third one coming up, three Ice Age films with a fourth one coming up and three Toy Story movies with, it appears, a fourth one coming up.

This is all true, but I don't really see what this has to do with my post, which was about a tv series, not sequels. I was just saying doing a CGI spin off 10 years ago would have been too costly but has gotten much cheaper with quality rivaling that of higher budget productions.

The fact that there is a line of merchandise/toys to accompany the Hawaiian Vacation short just shows how desperate Disney is to keep the Toy Story cash cow going.

I will genuinely be disappointed with Pixar if this happens. I understand there is a stack of money that a 4th movie could bring in but is it worth it? The third film was flawless, particularly the ending, so please for the love of god leave it at that!!

From my own point of view, I would much rather see them continue with the short films like Hawaiian Vacation, perhaps even show us what happened to characters like Bo Peep, Wheezy and Stinky Pete. I know that that's not likely to happen but I would love to see more of characters like Mr. Pricklepants, Trixie and Buttercup, characters that didn't have huge roles in Toy Story 3 but were still hugely entertaining.

Sotiris wrote:Here's the video in question:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13923988


Go to the 2:46 mark.

Hardly an official declaration. I suspect that Pixar is going to lay off the sequels after <i>Monsters University</i>, no matter how lucrative <i>Toy Story</i> has been for them. For now, <i>Cars 2</i> (which I haven't yet seen) looks like a fluke. They're not going to expand their flagship without a story worth telling and I'm not sure that they've got stories worth telling following <i>Toy Story 3</i>.

.........















OH, COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope this news isnt true. I agree the third film brought the toy's story full circle. It makes me sick to think they are going to milk this franchise until its DRY. Im cool with shorts but no more feature films PLEASE!

As long as they radically alter the plot genre (face it, the two sequels were rehashes of the original - a "great escape" film), then I don't mind.

That's what so good about Cars 2, they took the characters out of the first film and put them into a spy film, with guns and murder no less! I came out of the theatre thinking "they could easily make a third film, because the cast of characters are so versatile"

Luke wrote:

Sotiris wrote:Here's the video in question:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13923988


Go to the 2:46 mark.

Hardly an official declaration. I suspect that Pixar is going to lay off the sequels after <i>Monsters University</i>, no matter how lucrative <i>Toy Story</i> has been for them. For now, <i>Cars 2</i> (which I haven't yet seen) looks like a fluke. They're not going to expand their flagship without a story worth telling and I'm not sure that they've got stories worth telling following <i>Toy Story 3</i>.

I really hope you are right...

I think, if they wanted to make TS4, they would be smart to have at least 3 to 4 original stories made after "Monster's University." But if they do get to the point they have more then one film a year, it's not like it would be a long wait.

Victurtle wrote:As long as they radically alter the plot genre (face it, the two sequels were rehashes of the original - a "great escape" film), then I don't mind.

Wow, talk about oversimplifying a story.

I was thinking that, too.

I think a TS4 could work as long as they move away from the kids-grow-up story now. I know I would like to see more of the new characters they introduced in the third one, plus past characters like Bo Peep, Pete, etc. Maybe they could just have the toys interacting with one another and build a story out of that.

Admittedly, it's hard to think of a film-worthy storyline with toys that doesn't involve, "My kid is growing up! What's I gonna do's! "

My wife thought it would be cool is they had Bonnie discover that they toys are alive.

Yep, I was thinking one of the few possible stories they could do with Toy Story 4 is if it's revealed to the world that toys come to life (which I'm surprised hasn't been found out, with all of the security cameras in the world) and the toy universe is thrown into a calamity.

estefan wrote:Yep, I was thinking one of the few possible stories they could do with Toy Story 4 is if it's revealed to the world that toys come to life (which I'm surprised hasn't been found out, with all of the security cameras in the world) and the toy universe is thrown into a calamity.

Oh yeah that would be cool! The bad guy? Sid!

estefan wrote:Yep, I was thinking one of the few possible stories they could do with Toy Story 4 is if it's revealed to the world that toys come to life (which I'm surprised hasn't been found out, with all of the security cameras in the world) and the toy universe is thrown into a calamity.

Even this is an interesting and rather tantalising concept, it would spoil the overarching message of the three movies, especially the sequels; the toys represent parents, and they hate being left behind as their kids grow up. Yes, that message has been made quite clear, but to have the humans in their world learn that the toys are alive would make the fourth movie only a fun and entertaining movie, probably lacking the emotional connection the first three movies had with the audience.

I was watching E last night and they interviewed Tom Hanks and he mentioned signing up for Toy Story 4. What do you think of this??

There's another disscusion about this *points down*

http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28565