Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Further Details On The Future Of PIXAR!!

Pixar makes the movies kids wanna see over, and over, and over a by s-miller	Sep 17th, 2001 04:39:42 AM
Which gets pricey for parents everywhere, what with the inevitable merchandise blitz...but I'll pay, as long as they're creating films I'm thrilled to own, that hold up under INCESSANT viewings...my little monsters are raucously anticipating this release. Pixar is the cat's meow as far as they're concerned!
Hands up if you've seen a bad Pixar film. by Gabba-UK	Sep 17th, 2001 06:16:26 AM
Anyone? No? Didn't think so. Pure Genius.
Ice Age looks rather silly by Thoreau	Sep 17th, 2001 07:06:56 AM
Does anyone agree that the Pixar-competitor film Ice Age looks pretty weak...I don't know, it just felt they were trying too hard... Can't Wait for monsters inc... :)
276 million dollars in cash and zero debt by talkbacktornado	Sep 17th, 2001 07:50:58 AM
ugh... I'm stunned.
by Prankster	Sep 17th, 2001 08:15:41 AM

Moriarty said it by Prankster	Sep 17th, 2001 08:20:14 AM
I feel the same way. I'm really annoyed that, despite Bird having been snapped up by Pixar almost two years ago, we still have to wait THREE years for his next movie. Shouldn't his be the next one after Monsters, Inc? It's especially annoying because "Finding Nemo" sounds remarkably uninteresting, for Pixar. Of course, I'm sure I'll change my mind as soon as I see the trailer. Speaking of which, ICE AGE looks fantastic! I love the design, and if they can keep the kind of comic timing on display in that trailer, than we may have a winner indeed. Finally, a WORTHY opponent for Pixar in the 3D animation arena. Meanwhile, PDI can go stagger off somewhere and die.
Pixar Studios by Electric_Monk	Sep 17th, 2001 09:12:34 AM
Pixar has proven that you still can make an original film and have just as many adults want to see it as kids. Lassiter and his group know what the markets want, unlike most movie studios who push out crap like kids at cigarette vending machine. I loved the Iron Giant, and look forward to Brad Bird's first film with Pixar. I look forward to Monsters Inc, and what lays beyond.
Gabba UK, my hand is up! by crimsonrage	Sep 17th, 2001 10:40:23 AM
"A Bug's Life" took a great concept and turned it into something horrendously boring. Just my opinion.
Pixar ROCKS! by prickle27	Sep 17th, 2001 10:42:19 AM
Over the last ten years or so I might have seen houndreds of movies and most of them were crap. What makes it worse is that some have potential to truly be great, when you consider the talent, production, and money invested. However, writing is somehow neglected and the whole thing goes to hell (Pearl Harbor). Fortunately this has not been the case with any of the Pixar movies so far. I love the depth and heart that's given to the characters coupled with the obsticles and situations that are metaphors for what we all go through in life. I find that I relate to more Woodys' scence of uncertainty when he finds Buzz in "his spot"; than I could ever feel for Ben Aflecks' character in Pearl Harbor when he finds out that his best buddy has been diddiling his girlfriend. I know that I've mentioned Pearl Harbor a couple of times now, but that steaming pile is a perfect example of no matter how many explosions and special effects you have in a movie, they still can't make up for good writting.
:::raises hand::: by deadfiller	Sep 17th, 2001 10:45:56 AM
although I really loved Toy Story 2, I PERSONALLY did not care for TS or A Bug's Life. I really enjoy all of the shorts though, I think they have a lot of heart. But I'm not going to say everything they do is goold, because quite frankly I thought Antz was designed much better than ABL(as well as being a lot funnier). But with the looks of Monsters, INC they wil have two good ones in a row. And just to mention, I am not some jaded fool arguing for the sake of argument, these are just my honest opinions that I'm throwing out here. When I see potential, I like to see it fully realized. Pixar, in my opinion did not do that until TS2
Dreamworks' MADAGASCAR by frenchie	Sep 17th, 2001 11:33:15 AM
Any news about PDI's MADAGASCAR? I'm curious about this one.
Even Pixar's shorts are great by TopSpeed	Sep 17th, 2001 11:57:47 AM
They pre-date "Toy Story" and I imagine the technology was cruder then. But the story and imagery were great -- the Pixar touch was already evident. "Tin Toy" is on the videocassette release of "Toy Story 2," I think. The best Pixar short for me is "Red's Dream," about a lonely unicycle that imagines being a beloved circus star. It was amazing to me that Lasseter et al. were able to invest a unicycle (!) with heart-grabbing emotions.
Hey, don't forget their post-TS shorts! by Toonimator	Sep 17th, 2001 12:08:28 PM
... Geri's Game, which was a test in CG-cartoony-human characters... big success, and very funny, and For the Birds (which'll show with Monsters, in case you missed its run with Spike & Mike's Festival). FTB is hilarious! Appealing designs, great timing, and funny squeaks! I hope they increase production on shorts; those are worth a matinee ticket price even without features! :)
Ants? by SKARNN	Sep 17th, 2001 12:20:38 PM
I still believe that "Ants" was more of a technological step forward than "A Bugs Life". And "Ants" had a more clever approach to humor. Especialley Woody Allen's character "Z" was brilliant. Oh, and Sly's impression of a gentle brute was really good too. Anyone else think that "Ants" was funnier than "A Bugs Life"? Funnier, as in, it will entertain both adults and children alike. And, yes, I know that "A Bugs Life" was targeted towards children, but I believe "Ants" was to, and still it puzzles me how "Ants" is generally more fun to watch, than "A Bugs Life". All of my siblings and nieces think so to, and they range from 12-6 years in age. And wasn't that the target age for PIXAR? Is it my sense of humor that is ass-backwards or are PIXAR's animated shorts (no pun intended), a little to predictable and "cutie-cutie"-ish? Maybe I'm being to critical to say that "A Bugs Life" should entertain me. Me being an adult and all (well, sorta;)?
Bugs Life vs. Ants by IronRabbit	Sep 17th, 2001 01:42:22 PM
Wasn't ABL aimed more at the 6-12 crowd? I found the cross-marketing blitz annoying, but I liked ABL more than Ants, overall. I wanted to like Ants, but I guess the General's coup d'etat just wasn't as menacing as the Grasshopper's slavery. Flik was more sympathetic. Maybe I just don't like Woody Allen. Go Pixar. Hooray for good stories. Down with crappy toys.
My hands are down by Neosamurai85	Sep 17th, 2001 01:57:18 PM
I love Pixar because it seems to do something I have not really seen done since old school (80d
"second to none" by Oompacabra	Sep 17th, 2001 02:03:32 PM
With Toy Story Two, that's a bold statement.(unless it equals Toy Story Two and leaves out a moment like Jessie's song)No offense Sarah.
If only we could see some of Pixar's creativity, craftsmanship, by Cash Bailey	Sep 17th, 2001 02:05:00 PM
Saw A.I. last week. What the fuck was that!?!!
Pixar movies just keep getting better and better. by a goonie	Sep 17th, 2001 02:13:45 PM
for me, you've got Toy Story, which i thought looked retarded in the previews, but it ended up getting rave reviews, so i went and saw it. and i really liked it. it was fun. it was entertaining. i didn't LOVE IT TO DEATH, but it was good stuff. then along came A Bug's Life, and i DID love that one. i mean, gorgeous animation, just truly something special, and a fun story with good characters and hearty laughs. one of those really nice "good-for-kids-and-adults-alik e" movies. then along comes Toy Story 2, which just plain ROCKS! i mean, i put it up there with The Iron Giant and Sleeping Beauty as one of my all-time favourite animated movies. it was well-written, VERY entertaining, the characters were back with loads of energy, and it was funnier the second time around. and on top of all that, it was an adventure movie!!! one of my problems with the first movie (and this wasn't a huge problem) was that i felt... well... that the movie didn't quite go enough places. like, literally. it didn't really leave Andy's house and the little jerkwad kid's place. now, of course, that's not a big deal, cuz this was the toys' first big excursion, and to them, well, that was quite the journey. but i guess i just felt as though the movie lacked a certain amount of scope. i still really liked it though. but the whole point is, that Toy Story 2 had that one missing ingredient, that one thing the first movie sort of lacked... and it had it in spades. the whole adventure the toys embarked on this time felt very... cinematic. anyways, i think Monster's, Inc. looks wonderful and i'm eagerly awaiting its release.
Antz by zacdilone	Sep 17th, 2001 02:15:05 PM
Zucked. Period. Biggest waste of my moviegoing dollars in recent history. "A Bug's Life" was clever...but geeks don't like it 'cause it wasn't a slew of pop-culture humor. Good, low-key humor is classy, and Bug's Life was just that.
Look at me! I think Pixar is perfect! by Sarcastic Person	Sep 17th, 2001 02:23:41 PM
Pixar has never done anything to make anyone hate any of their movies! EVERYONE loved A Bug's Life! Not only was it entertaining for the kids, but it was ALSO high quality entertainment for adults! I pop it in at every stag party! Not only that, but EVERYONE thought A Bug's Life was better than Antz! Antz wasn't funny at ALL! Antz was as bad as those other horrible kids movies, the Goonies and, oh yeah, Toy Story! It was ridiculously UNground-breaking! And everyone thinks Woody Allen is really unfunny, except for Curse of the Jade Scorpion, which was nonstop laughter from beginning to end! Plus Helen Hunt and the Woodman sizzle as a romantic couple! Well, I've gotta go, my magical fairy land, complete with mushroom house, awaits me. Oh, and in case you were wondering, I was being sarcastic!
OK, OK so A Bugs Life may have been weaker but... by Gabba-UK	Sep 17th, 2001 02:36:14 PM
That only shows how good the rest of their output is! ABL still kicked the shit out of Antz in my opinion if only for the inspired genius of the 'out-takes' at the end.
when is a movie not a movie? by IronRabbit	Sep 17th, 2001 02:42:27 PM
When it has a $175 mil marketing campaign AND 350 million products. It took a while for those numbers to sink into my head. My fear is that when you get to that point, someone is asking the director to make changes like "We need some vehicles to sell with the action figures. Put some vehicles into the movie. And could you make his wings shorter so the toy moldings will be cheaper. And the spikes need to be blunter so we can put it into happy meals and the kids wont poke their eyes out. Thanks" I hope I'm wrong.
$175 Million is not being spent by Disney by Room_A113	Sep 17th, 2001 06:01:40 PM
Although I didn't specifically state it in the original, the $175 million will be spent by promotional partners (i.e. McDonalds, Wal Mart, Frito Lay, etc.), not by Disney. Disney never discloses the amount that they spend on marketing, and it gets buried in their accounting. Also, I do believe that Pixar doesn't let marketing decisions dictate how they write their stories or develop their characters. However, there were some things toned down to garner a 'G' rating in Monsters as well as Toy Story (some of Sid's viciousness was deleted). All Pixar films thus far have been G-rated. I think this is in line with Steve Jobs statement that he wants the Pixar brand to mean 'quality and APPROPRIATE' entertainment for the whole family.
Has AICN turned into an investment board? by dcarm	Sep 17th, 2001 06:39:49 PM
Hmm, didnt know Aint It Cool was an investment board. How about that NYSE, it was down today. Think MSFT is good to buy right now? :/
Antz vs. ABL...yawn. by Prankster	Sep 17th, 2001 08:38:00 PM
I've come to the conclusion that arguing about Antz vs. A Bug's Life is really silly. I mean, both movies have a lot going for them, and it seems to come down to (shock!) personal taste. Personally I prefer ABL, since I found it more inventive and with a more developed story, whereas Antz concentrated too much on style ("edginess", big stars) and not enough on solid storytelling and attractive design. I have the exact same problem with Shrek, only more so. But Antz still does have a lot going for it, I'm not going to badmouth anyone who preferred it. It's not like the debate about The Matrix vs. Dark City, where people who prefer the latter are clearly idiots. :) (Note to humourless geeks: that last was what's known as a "joke".)
Finding Nemo by truthbknown	Sep 17th, 2001 11:28:41 PM
You can expect one helluva film when 'Finding Nemo' comes out, since it is being directed by Andrew Stanton and the Head of Story is Dan Jeup (TS2)! Andrew has wacky ideas and Jeup has that classic Disney thing down pat - great team!
Shrek you Disney! by Wild At Heart	Sep 18th, 2001 02:35:30 AM
The unparalleled success of "Shrek" this year was the best damn news in a long time for the much-disdained global animation industry. Over the last decade Disney studios have progressively turned the wonderful art of animated filmmaking into the harelipped-hydrocephalic-idiot - bastard-inbred-cousin-buried-i n-the-basement of cinema. Their attitude toward their product in recent years has been truly pitiful, making the most stalwart fan or parent acutely aware of their purely mercenary intentions and their complete and utter disinterest in telling a story with real heart, feeling and soul. "Dinosaur" was a total stiff and I was glad to see it treated in many quarters with the total derision it deserved. All the tacked-on cgi spectacle in the world could not put any pep in a horse which was dead and crawling with flies at the starting post. "Iron Giant" and "Princess Mononoke" are stirring, heartfelt pieces of cinematic art that explore the possiblities of the 2D animated form in a way which makes it seem vital and new. Damn you Disney for condemning these films and others to almost total public disinterest by creating a perception that traditional animation is for infants or attention-deficicient epsilons. What a shame this corrupted Paleozoic relic of the entertainment sphere is able to resort to its subsidiary, Pixar as a crutch to save its sagging fortunes and image. How I'd love to see Disney go belly up, steamrolled as it attempts to put on the brakes by a juggernaut of its own devising. How does this relate to Pixar? Pixar makes movies with heart - thank you Pixar. Pixar makes movies with intelligence - thank you Pixar. Pixar makes movies with humour - thank you Pixar. Pixar likes its audience, and clearly loves the art of cinema and the possibilities of storytelling and mythmaking - I like/love Pixar. Further, the true triumph of "Shrek" was not the often-superb and sometimes startlingly understated and subtle cgi styling and animation which the film was infused with. In reality it was the sheer effervescence, bravura and sense of playfylness that kicked in from the word go and sustained itself right through to the end. This was a film that transcended its form. This was not a cgi bonanza that engaged only techheads and boffins interested in texture maps or flythroughs. this was not "Final Fantasy". This was a raucous good-natured fairy-tale spoof that never forgot that as it took digs at fairy tale lore and legend, it was in fact, a fairy tale in itself. It was smart and savvy, yet implicity knowing of the truth of its own origins. I anticipate more wonders from Pixar and Dreamworks - of Disney however, I expect nothing more than a painfully protracted implosion. 175 million clams on marketing,eh? I wonder how many script drafts or R&D that gobsmacking mountain of cash would fund. Disney corp doesn't so much lack priorities, rather it has bled out all genetic memory of ever having had them at all.
Yeah, but, but... by Jonte	Sep 18th, 2001 05:36:14 AM
... wasn't the characters in "Shrek" plain ugly? (Yes, all of them. I'm not complaining about tech, more about design.)
I'll just go lie down, and cool off after this. by SKARNN	Sep 18th, 2001 08:44:28 AM
Hmmm, seems like I'm the only one after all. Damn ;) IronRabbit: 6-12 year..That's the exact age-range of my siblings and nieces. Who watched both movies and liked Antz(!) more. Monterey Jack: Yes, Antz damnit ;) Prankster: Erhmmm, okay, I get it. Make a statement that opposes to making statements about Antz and ABL, and then state your remarks about...Antz and ABL? Yes, i guess it all comes down to personal taste, but still...Aren't we all entitled to "state" that? grumblestiltskin: It's all about money baby! ;)
antz, shrek, two for two by Cthulu	Sep 18th, 2001 10:46:57 PM
That's the thing about the Dreamworks thing. Two attempts, two great movies(Antz as good as TS1, better than ABL, Shrek as good as if not better than TS2). I heard that Jeffrey Katzenberg pitched the idea of doing a CG bug movie to Disney. They nixed it at the time but when JK decided to leave Disney with his idea for a CG bug movie, they pitched it to PIXAR who'd just hit it big with TOY STORY 1! It's clear that ANTZ was much more of a nurtured project than ABL, which seemed to me was kind of thrown together at the last minute. As far as I'm concerned, Toy Story 1 was a homerun, A Bug's Life was a foul tip and Toy Story 2 was a grand slam. Pixar has Dreamworks beat on quantity, but on quality they are neck and neck. We'll see what Monsters, Inc brings. You gotta admit, it's getting released at the perfect time for the kiddies to indulge in some cross market merchandising. Somehow though, realizing that leaves a sour taste in one's mouth. But in my heart of hearts I know people like John Lasseter aren't just out for the money. And if he needs to take until '05 to make his next movie so be it. The guy's already the Orson Welles, the Frank Capra, the Stanley Kubrick and the Steven Spielberg of his genre. Rock on PIXAR and Dreamworks! Same goes double for Brad Bird, the most underrated animation director of his time.

Talkbacks

Further Details On The Future Of PIXAR!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks