MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Who's in charge now

Pixar holds the cards again. Checkmate!

Geez, I hope he at least took a look at the work done thus far (script, animation quality, storyline, etc.). That seems a bit harsh if he didn't.

thank god!

Beloved movies should be remembered, not killed with incessant and increasingly worse sequels.

hahahaha.....

regardless of whether i like the decision or not....

hhahahhaha

We all know disney as of late years has/had nothing going for it but sequels... hopefully this was a worthy break off into the world of "originality".

good. anyone who actually watches toy story 1 & 2 with common sense, sees that there is nowhere else for the story to go. Now ... the incredibles is another story.....could get a coupla great sequels out that one...

OFF WITH YER HEADS!!! - John Lasseter

Third one is always a flop anyway

So much for business as usual at Disney! Just when those lazy bastards thought they would just repack and get rich, good ol' Lasseter drops the fly in their ointment® (so to speak).

Rock on JL!

Saucers with milk all around, and let the bitch-slapping begin. Oh, and watch Hoodwinked. Not prime animation, but funnier than TS. Pixney should start to worry about competition from those who can deliver a fun story.

Link to Disneyland Memorial Orgy

http://www.paulkrassner.com/DMO72.jpg

Bambi 2
Lion King 2
Lion King 1 1/2
Pocahantas 2
Cinderella 2
The Emperor's New Groove 2

Thank you Lasseter, for putting a stop to this, be sure to kill anything else that equates to this straight to Disney DVD crap, I'm pretty sure Chicken Little 2 was on the horizon.

Bend over baby,
I'm driving.

Translation
Who's Yo Daddy?

I'm thinking about doing a sequel:

Dirty Harry 5: The Animator


Director walks into the sequal factory and says:

"Felling lucky punk? Make my day..."

Good for him. Buzz and Woody are his babies.

While I hate the idea that people are getting laid off and all, I have to say good show to Lasseter. It was a pretty sad idea.

At the very least, consider that Toy Story came out in 1995. Toy Story 2 came out in 1999. So it's been 7 years since we last heard from Buzz and Woody. Those kids who watched Toy Story when they were kids are now teenagers and have little interest in seeing the third installment.

Heck, if they insist on doing straight-to-video releases, that sounds like a job for 'The Incredibles'. Lots of pretty standard superhero stories there that Disney could milk.

Now with lassiter in control maybe disney can just concentrate on creating original stories and not milking the sequels till they blled dry.

Disney-pixar should be about original ideas.

Come one guys, create something new that hasnt been seen in kids cartoons before - then maybe you can win an oscar or two!

Disney is not wrong for trying to exploit the sequal regime as many production studios know that sequals, prequals and additions to a film franchinse simply bring in 'easy profit'. The reason we are swamped with sequals and additional content to movie franchises is because Hollywood (including Disney, Sony, Warner Bros, etc) learned a long time ago its relatively cheaper to market and promote a franchise because even if the second or third movie are not as great, up to 80% of the origninal viewers of the first hit will view the second movie in the lineup and up to 70% of that 80% will watch a third installment. Why do you think we have the Lord of the Rings, Matrix, Star Wars Episodes 1,2,3,4,5, & 6, Harry Potter, The Chronicles of Narnia, Spiderman, X-Men, Batman, Super Man, Hell Raiser, Miss Congeniality, Big Mammas House, Under World, etc... Hollywood learned about 20 years ago that sequals and re-makes were simply easy money. The cost of production is usually the same or even less, but the cost to market and distribute decreases significatnly because they already have a strong viewer base, an established brand, established distribution channels, etc., and assuming 80% of the original viewers will go see part 2 or 3, they can very easily tie in apparel, accessories, etc, not to mention some movies going directly to video and being licenced by BlockBuster and other large Video Houses with those video houses paying royalties. It's really easy money. Disney wants to keep its shareholders happy and make easy money so they will opt for sequals. The new boss at the Pixar-Disney marriage is opting for innovation and he has good reason to do that, he wants to keeep in the tradition of Steve Jobs by doing things new, special, cool, that don't suck! I agree with cutting off Toy Story 3. I believe very few movies warrant a second or third episode and if you ask me, Shrek (Not a Disney, nor Pixar Creation, but from DreamWorks Studios), though a wild success, should not have had a part 2. I loved the first one and the second one was great, but they could have taken that talent and put it into something innovative to keep us attentive in the long run. I think that's what Lasseter is doing. Keep the innovation high and the long term notariety fresh instead of killing us with sequals. Isn't that how Disney got so great so long ago, by creating new characters, exploring vision and innovation and producing things that people actually enjoyed without beating them in the head with the same old franchise or insulting their intelligence with B grade entertainment?

Let's see what Lass wants to really do...

What Disney/Eisner did with Pocahontas II, The Little Mermaid II, Cinderella II, Hunchback of Notre Dame II, Bambi II, and most of all, Lion King II was a crime!!! Taking quality legends and trashing them with cheap, under budgeted, turn it out tomorrow, made for video TV quality movies so next month's spread sheet would look good is what gave Disney the reputation-al black eye it deserved.

Job's and Co. (this includes John Lasseter) is coming to save Disney's butt just in time!

According to stories as far back as early 2004, Eisner/Disney had SEVERAL Pixar sequels in the works that were not being produced by Pixar.
Jobs was then quoted saying "We feel sick about Disney doing sequels because if you look at the quality of their sequels... it's been pretty embarrassing."

There's nothing wrong with sequels. Pixar's Toy Story II was better than the first one because they took the time, energy, and money to a quality job.

Go Lasseter!

And so the inverse takeover of Disney beings...

Magic Word:

Peace

I wouldn't worry about the people working on that project folks. I'm sure Pixar have brought in a number of new characters and ideas that need developing. In three years time, I reckon we're going to see some fantastic stuff coming from Disney.

The best thing for Bob Iger to do is let them get on with it, and bearing in mind that Pixar agreed this takeover in the first place, I reckon he will.

Chris,

"Beloved movies should be remembered, not killed with incessant and increasingly worse sequels."

I agree, although many would say that Toy Story 2 was beter than Toy Story 1

""Beloved movies should be remembered, not killed with incessant and increasingly worse sequels."

I agree, although many would say that Toy Story 2 was beter than Toy Story 1 "

Very true, but we're not talking about TS 2 here, we're talking about Bambi, Cinderella and the Little Mermaid.

There will eventually be a Toy Story 3 - it will just be John Lasseter´s version.
It was axed because it so was an all Disney production - no one from the original Toy Story team had any say in it.

I think that when the Pixar guys saw that David Hasselhof (Knight Rider) and the Olsen Twins were singing the theme song and Bill Clinton was doing a cameo 3D role (putting the moves on Little Bo Peep and the Dinosaur), plus the Disney script had a couple of sections of flashbacks with Roger Rabbit as Batman vs. a gay King Kong vs. the cast of "Friends" and "Desparate Housewives" (all rendered in 3D) they knew they had to ax this Toy Story.

I dunno what this has to do with MDN. So what? So Lasseter asserts his authority? That's what he's supposed to do. So the team working on the script may be screwed... again: so what? What next: a discussion about Pocopechas?

This talk about reverse takeover is so off. Iger paid those 7 billion bucks to get Lasseter. Of course, he knew what that entailed, Lasseter and SJ have never been shy to speak their mind. Iger wants Lasseter to clean out the muck.
All the creative staff will soon learn the excitement of creating something new and innovative. With the added man/womanpower, Pixney will produce original movies at a higher rate. If I worked at Disney animation, I'd be happy to be pulled from producing made-for-DVD sequels.

When are we going to see a movie of Thundercats ??!?!

A third Toy Story could have been good but with Disney's animation department? That's like Apple reveling Mac OS X Leopard will be based on Windows (ok, a bit harsh but you get what I mean, right?).

Let's keep the news relating to Apple MDN.

Why don't you just register pixardailynews.com or disneydailynews.com and post this information there?

Don't post this junk here.

While I'm glad to hear Lasseter put the smackdown on Disney's mediocrity, I agree that this forum needs to be careful not to turn into PixarDailyNews.com...

peee!!!!

Whoooho! Kick some Disney ass Lasseter! Good decision. APPLAUSE!

Disney will take ANY fantastic original idea and run it into the ground shamelessly to milk every last cent out of it with total disgreguard for quality of output.

Former Disney philosophy: It's easier to keep watering many, many classic movies down to mindless dribble--"fast-food" style productions based on the same burger. Disney's survived the last decadees by collecting pennies here and there from the low-end DVD sales of spin-offs that keep 3 and 4 year olds entertained (same characters, brainless story). Less effort than to start from scratch, work hard to think of something ORIGINAL again and write a WHOLE NEW CREATIVE CONCEPT (GASP!) that wows the world anew and brings in millions of fresh dollars.

Disney says: What? Yawn! Too much like work--besides we haven't completed the 63rd version of Winnie the Pooh getting stuck in another windstorm, this time in a rainforest with a chimp. Or Herbie version 73 races agains dirt-bikes with Menudo!

This place isn't in danger of being Pixardailynews, it's more like stevejobsandvaguaelystevejobsrelatednews.com

Okay you guys complaining about what in the hell does this story have to do with Apple?
You see the Steve is a big honcho at Apple because of his cashing in his Pixar stock.
So with Stevisney over there and its part of a company that is a board member then through MDN´s logic this has something to do with daily news regarding Macs.

Just think we will now be getting all the latest Disney news here at MDN because of Stevisney´s connection.
Coming up on MDN stories on:
- "Toilet paper shortage reported at Disneyworld."
- "The little eskimo in It´s Small World fun ride loses his nose from old age."
- "Bambi II" - the review by MDN
- "Brittany Spears - ex Micky Mouse TV fan club star: where is she now?"

"Geez, I hope he at least took a look at the work done thus far (script, animation quality, storyline, etc.). That seems a bit harsh if he didn't."

My guess is that's WHY he axed it. If Pixar had NO creative input into the film, and it sucked, there's no fixing it unless you start at the beginning. I wouldn't be surprised to see a TS3 at some point but my guess is it isn't time for it and they have their own ideas what it should be about.

"I dunno what this has to do with MDN. So what? So Lasseter asserts his authority? That's what he's supposed to do. So the team working on the script may be screwed... again: so what? What next: a discussion about Pocopechas?"

You always have the option of not clicking on a link. What is it that much for you to bear that it took .072 seconds to read one headline that wasn't 100% Apple related? You'd think they posted a story here about cooking or dogs or something. Get over it. Move on.

Fourth, not forth.

Reginald: You have a valid point about profits, etc., but some of the examples you use are poor. Many of them are adaptations of books or master story lines that could not possibly be condensed into a single movie. Everyone knew from the start that there would be sequels (or, more accurately, a complete series); there is simply no other way to do it.

I wonder if he'll kill "Bambi 2"...

Pixar news is important as it speaks to the convergence that is happening within media and the IT industry. Apple, quite obviously is positioning itself so as to increase their leverage and power through the marriage of their expertise with the behemoth that is Disney. To take the fight back to Microshit, Apple needs to be more than just a niche player. They did it with the iPod, they need to do now with the Mac. Its my sense that this deal with Disney is yet another move in that plan. Remember, Jobs has had a largely hands-off approach with Pixar. His orientation has always been with his core interest - Apple.

Remember all those that whinged about iPod news. Now look at what the iPod has brought - the seemless integration of software(iTunes), technology(iPod) and sales (iTMS). This tight integration of the whole experience has carried over into the even tighter integration of all iLife apps. There are similarities within the pro line of apps too.

So c'mon, sure Pixar news maybe the stuff of page 3, but dont kid yourselves - it is still important. This Pixar deal signposts the direction where we might be headed (at least in part).

I'm with Wally Wallet, there probably will be a Toy Story 3 one day, only a pixar version. Although really, Andy has got to be in at least Junior High school right now. Could he still be playing with that cowboy toy? It's either Toy Story 3 the ashcan or Toy Story 3, ebay.

All Steve touches affects Apple. Some of us WANT to know.

The MDN headlines tell you what is being discussed in a link. If you aren't interested in Pixar news, don't click on the link. It's that simple.

Reginald said, "Why do you think we have the Lord of the Rings, Matrix, Star Wars Episodes 1,2,3,4,5, & 6, Harry Potter, The Chronicles of Narnia, Spiderman, X-Men, Batman, Super Man, Hell Raiser, Miss Congeniality, Big Mammas House, Under World, etc..."

I don't disagree with you but some of these examples are really not applicable. Lord of the Rings was never written to be a movie, and condensing into one movie would have been terrible.

Star Wars was written to be a series of movies but George Lucas saw the big picture first, he didn't rush to come out with the rest of it after the first was successful. In fact, he said that after he finished the first movie but before it was released, that he didn't think he'd ever have a chance to tell the whole story.

The Harry Potter series was written to be turned into movies either. JK Rowling only allowed them to become movies after the studio granted her the right to complete creative control. That was brilliant on her part because they've stayed very true to the books.

As for the Chronicles of Narnia, I haven't seen it yet, but I must admit that my first thought when I heard they were going to make a new series of movies from it was that they were trying to cash in on some of what Harry Potter had created.

The other examples you cited I agree with, but the ones I listed above were done for the same reason Pixar did TS2, they had a good idea for another story. That's something Disney lost a long time ago, and the reason that acquiring Pixar is probably going to be a good thing for the company.

Sorry, that should have read, "The Harry Potter series wasn't written to be turned into movies either."

Change it to SteveDailyNews. End of problem.

Moral: Don't play global thermonuclear war with Steve Jobs.

"Why do you think we have the Lord of the Rings, Matrix, Star Wars Episodes 1,2,3,4,5, & 6, Harry Potter, The Chronicles of Narnia, Spiderman, X-Men, Batman, Super Man, Hell Raiser, Miss Congeniality, Big Mammas House, Under World, etc..."

Well, I would disagree in some of the above cases.

Lord of the Rings was at least three books. As was said above, trying to condense them down to one 2-3 hour movie would have been next to impossible. It'd been tried (Anybody else remember Ralph Bakshi's attempt?)

"Superhero" movies, I can easily forgive. Much like James Bond, these are designed to be serialized.

"Chronicles of Narnia" is one movie. There are no sequels (yet). It's been years since I read "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" and I don't remember if there are other books.

Miss Congeniality and Big Mama's House, though? Definitely! Add in Barbershop II, Princess Diaries 2, and Cheaper by the Dozen 2.