|
Post by nauticusvergil on Jun 20, 2006 14:18:13 GMT -5
No, I meant the part about Rati...what were you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 20, 2006 14:19:04 GMT -5
Huh?
|
|
|
Post by nauticusvergil on Jun 20, 2006 14:21:15 GMT -5
What? did you get rid of that post already? I looked for it to quote, but it's gone....
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Jun 20, 2006 14:22:25 GMT -5
I think the Rati part was in another thread...
|
|
|
Post by nauticusvergil on Jun 20, 2006 14:22:59 GMT -5
No...it was definitely here....
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 20, 2006 14:24:11 GMT -5
It was in Moderators when I called you Rati instead of fully ^_^
|
|
|
Post by nauticusvergil on Jun 20, 2006 14:26:20 GMT -5
Oh...see, your mind collapses when you're.....uhh, yeah.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 20, 2006 14:26:53 GMT -5
?
|
|
|
Post by nauticusvergil on Jun 20, 2006 14:28:30 GMT -5
Depressed.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 20, 2006 14:30:07 GMT -5
...
|
|
|
Post by nauticusvergil on Jun 20, 2006 14:38:10 GMT -5
It's okay....I AM really trying.
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 20, 2006 14:41:36 GMT -5
^_^
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jun 20, 2006 15:24:17 GMT -5
Well supposedly. Though Pete DID say it was unlikely before, that they needed a "killer" idea. First part? They said "only the people in "some town" know". It's in the article. Those people refer to the employees of Pixar, Sean, and "some town" is Emeryville. They are NOT referring to US, or any Randall fans, for that matter. There are two reasons why Monsters, Inc. would be chosen for a sequel, and one is the age of the movie. It would make sense that IF Pixar was going to go ahead and start making sequels, they would make them for their older films first, while most fans still remember those characters. I know I've said that many times myself. Second, it was a hugely successful film from a financial standpoint, and the more successful the original was, the greater the likelihood that the sequel will prove lucrative, as well. A Bug's Life, while no real disappointment at the boxoffice, was still the poorest performer out of all of Pixar's past releases, so it will not likely get a sequel, and with the Toy Story third installment on hold, perhaps indefinately, that leaves Monsters, Inc.. It's unlikely that this decision has anything to do with us, per se. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Jun 20, 2006 15:29:35 GMT -5
Yeah, couldn't recall the name.
What about Finding Nemo then?
Well we had to make some impact...
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Jun 20, 2006 15:37:01 GMT -5
Yeah, couldn't recall the name. What about Finding Nemo then? Well we had to make some impact... Finding Nemo probably WILL get a sequel, but since it was a more recent film, that sequel will have to wait. I'm not sure if Pixar will do that sequel, though, since that movie really had a good, solid conclusion, that left no stones unturned or loose ends untied, so to speak. You were not left wondering "what happened to so-and-so" because you pretty much saw how it turned out for everyone in the end, unlike Monsters, Inc.I still fail to see how WE have made an impact at all in that decision, since Pixar could very well be thinking along the lines of "people want to see more of Mike and Sulley and see what Boo looks like now that she's older, and wanna hear more of Mike's wise-cracks." BESIDES, there is NO OFFICIAL word from PIXAR yet...this is supposition on the part of Jim Hill, and if you read the article, you can see that he has a difficult time keeping his anti-Lasseter bias out of it. He is rolling with glee that a Lasseter-directed film has not done as well as the Hollywood pundits thought it would do, and in his mind, that constitutes a "flop". Lasseter was also supposed to direct the now-on-hold Toy Story 3, so Jim Hill is using the news that Peter Docter mentioned a project involving monsters to draw attention to that replacing Lasseter's project, to make Lasseter look bad and make it appear that he's on the way out, which I seriously DO NOT believe to be the case. pitbulllady
|
|