|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Oct 15, 2005 10:26:03 GMT -5
Full article here at Jim Hill Media-looks like IF they do get back together, which seems likely, that "Monsters, Inc. 2" will be turned over to PIXAR to make as part of the deal! jimhillmedia.com/article.php?id=1690pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Oct 15, 2005 15:24:34 GMT -5
Interesting...
Seems Monsters Inc. 2 is a definet no matter what....
And it seems it will fall into the hands of Pixar....
But...Chicken Little seems to be the key here. If it flops....Pixar has the advantage....
If it hits big.....hey wait a sec.....
Isn't Chicken Little based off a book or story? Then that would mean that Disney knows HOW to use CGI, this is all if Chicken Little is a success, but proves they CANNOT make a good CGI story themselves....
If Chicken Little was made before....
Even if it is a success, there would, bascially, be no disadvantage or advantage for anyone.
Seems like Pixar has a chance to get ahead....and with Iger wanting to see dealings with Pixar....seems good.....
Dang...
I've only got 3 years....
Is it enough....
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Oct 15, 2005 15:56:13 GMT -5
"Chicken Little" IS based on the old folk tale, but keep in mind that many of Disney's most beloved and most successful animated movies ARE based on fairy/folk tales, like "Cinderella", "The Little Mermaid", and "Sleeping Beauty". That doesn't make those crappy movies. What matters is HOW the Disney writers are able to put their own "touch" to the stories that everyone already knows by heart, and make it their own.
What IS a good point, though, is that IF "Chicken Little" flops, then Disney will be even more reliant upon Pixar to keep their animated film division financially solvent. With this new contract(knocking on wood), I will expect to see even more collaboration in the creative process between the two companies, rather than Pixar simply making the movies, and Disney simply distributing them.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Oct 15, 2005 16:32:35 GMT -5
Perhaps...
But those films were in the days of Mr. Walt's leadership, and later memory. They weren't CGI either....
Simply because it's an old folk tale, some people might be fans of Chicken Little already. If so, Disney won't make it just because the CGI MAY be good....but because they based it off something that already exists....
|
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Oct 21, 2005 9:06:39 GMT -5
I've always thought that if Disney hadn't been so big-headed, they would make a very good collaboration with Pixar, because everyone knows Disney, and Pixar are the master story-tellers and they also have the technology. If they could come to an agreement, even if Disney does have a say in what happens in Pixar films, a Monsters, Inc. 2 is still going to be very good, though whether Randall will turn over a new leaf can be doubted since Disney have a reputation of making some hard-core villains.
|
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Oct 21, 2005 9:52:00 GMT -5
Randall WILL be in the sequel. It CANNOT be without him, just can't....
But the problem that Pixar will have is, if Randall isn't going to be the villain....who is?
|
|
|
|
Post by tailmister on Oct 25, 2005 0:27:05 GMT -5
I dunno.... Head of Scare Co. ??
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Oct 25, 2005 5:50:34 GMT -5
Randall WILL be in the sequel. It CANNOT be without him, just can't.... But the problem that Pixar will have is, if Randall isn't going to be the villain....who is? How about a HUMAN villain, like someone who's discovered the Monster World and how to reach it, and wants to exploit the Monsters-some Human-World version of Waternoose, perhaps. Maybe it will be revealed that he and Waternoose had known each other and had a deal going at one point, like for this guy to provide Waternoose with unlimitied children to go into the Scream Extractor. OR, who says that they HAVE to have a villain? "Finding Nemo" didn't have a villain, after all, so you can make a movie without one. pitbulllady |
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Oct 25, 2005 14:00:39 GMT -5
Now Tailmister...
Now that you mention it....
So far, I am the ONLY person that will introduce Scare Co.'s Boss....
In fact, he will be a major piece in the last edition of the series....in good time, I'll tell you what...who...he is...
So...I ask you guys, Pitbulllady, Cool...rest...not to go into Scare Co.'s room just yet...
Well Pitbulllady...fish were cute. Cute factors out villainry. Monsters, most kids assume, are terrible things, so there has to be a villain. However. People like us, yes...there shouldn't be a need for a villain. But a struggle.
|
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Oct 25, 2005 20:09:48 GMT -5
Not all fish are cute. It would have been easy for the guys at Pixar to make Bruce and the other sharks into villains; after all, people have pretty much the same negative stereotype of sharks that they do of reptiles. Fortunately, they opted out THIS time not to play upon preconceived stereotypes. Yes, there was a struggle, TWO in fact, and it still made for a good movie without having a real villain.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Oct 26, 2005 15:02:17 GMT -5
Yes there's that....
But I, like you, like the fact that they showed Sharks only go berserk with the stiumli of...vital fluid.....
Yes...
Randall's (more important) struggle of forgiveness and life
And Sullivan's struggle (if any...) of guilt and forgiving
|
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Oct 30, 2005 6:43:39 GMT -5
Obviously it's up to Pixar (or Disney, depending on what happens) as to what to do concerning a villain, but if the matter does end up in Pixar's hands, well, I trust them enough to make the movie the best it can be. Disney, on the other hand, will most certainly opt to have a villain, but are also known for, in their sequels, creating new villains. Like in the Little Mermaid 2, and The Lion King 2, and so on.
|
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Oct 30, 2005 13:44:10 GMT -5
They may return Waternoose for some stupid reason or another...
Maybe someone does a hostile takeover of M.I. or something?
|
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Oct 31, 2005 8:39:14 GMT -5
Because of the way MI ended, there are numerous story-lines that Pixar/Disney could opt for, though yes, something to do with a breakdown of the company is plausible.
|
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Oct 31, 2005 16:25:49 GMT -5
Personally, the layoffs for professional Scarers, and those wanting, training, to be Scarers would have something to do with it...
"Oh no...your not coming up with ANOTHER idea are ya!?".
I've already got 4 new stories planned heh heh.
|
|
