criterionforum.org

Roger Ryan wrote:The idea of the TOY STORY short added to CARS 2 is distressing as I agree that particular franchise needed to be put to bed.

We need a $$$ sign smiley *kaching!*

Tom Hagen wrote:A thousand bad Larry the Cable Guy jokes were nowhere as irritating to me as the fact that Pixar tacked on a retread short in front of the retread movie.

I agree, definitely disappointing. I expected to have problems with Cars 2, but figured I at least had one of their inventive/amusing shorts to look forward to ... and then this. It's all the more embarrassing because, contra Nothing, the short films they attach do basically zilch to drive box office or other sales, so they have a free slot to do whatever with that 5 or so minutes that they want - it's not like the kids were lining up to see the "Day & Night" short that was in front of Toy Story 3. It comes off as laziness for the sake of laziness.

That said Day & Night is the reason to watch Toy Story 3.

Roger Ryan wrote:Of course, Pixar has now taken over Disney Animation, so it will be interesting if the Pixar brand is afforded the same level of autonomy it has enjoyed in the past. The idea of the TOY STORY short added to CARS 2 is distressing as I agree that particular franchise needed to be put to bed.

About that...

There's a Monsters Inc 2 in the works, too. The thought of every Pixar movie turning into a franchise is a little depressing, since it seemed like they were an exception to that trend- I'm only an intermittent Pixar fan, but I'm exhausted of franchises that peter out but never die, and it was nice to have some big moneymakers to point to that didn't do that.

I do remember reading something about MONSTERS, INC. 2, but I must have blocked it from my mind. If TOY STORY 4 is in the talking stage, then I guess anything goes.

I love the comment that says the first production meeting must have sounded like two cash registers fucking.

In addition to toy story and monsters inc sequels they are also supposed to be doing an Incredibles sequel. That coupled with this toy story short definitely makes me a little sad. I'm no hater with Toy Story 3, I liked it very much but I definitely think it's OVER. OVER.

I feel like Pixar is one of if not the most trusted name in the film business and these decisions make me feel like they're ignoring the example of one of their founders Steve Jobs. Apple makes consistently great products that cost a little more and often deliver products to the public that they didn't even know they needed.

It's very shortsighted to think that you've established a brand and just keep mucking around in it the Disney way. There won't be a backlash after Cars 2 but if they put out 2 or 3 unnecessary sequels people will certainly feel let down by one of the only major companies that specializes in original product.

We've all seen the absurd breakdowns of sequels and remakes coming this year and next and it seems that Pixar would be filling a vital niche with original material.

Here's hoping that if they're selling out then they move into a one for them, one for us model that allows them to push further into stuff like the Wall-E first half.

Bird said he'll never do an Incredibles sequel and they've said they won't do one without him so it's all clear on that front. That said I find it hilarious that you think following Apple's example is a good thing. They've managed to become worse than Microsoft.

The irony is that The Incredibles, in terms of story and character, probably could support a sequel much better than Cars or Monsters, Inc.

knives wrote:That said I find it hilarious that you think following Apple's example is a good thing. They've managed to become worse than Microsoft.

Oh, Lord, this is up there with "Does .999...=1" for arguments I never want to hear again.

knives wrote:Bird said he'll never do an Incredibles sequel and they've said they won't do one without him so it's all clear on that front. That said I find it hilarious that you think following Apple's example is a good thing. They've managed to become worse than Microsoft.

I'm not saying AICN's an empirical source. And yes I am saying Apple is a good example when it comes to making a quality product. If you're a hacker nerd or really into open source Apple isn't for you, there are other options, but they make an extremely high quality product and are always innovating. Likewise if you just like quiet dark low budget cinema verite, Pixar probably isn't for you.

To argue against that is just silly and I think you get a little testy whenever Nothing's in the room.

Naw, Nothing's been cool these last few days. Just really dislike Apple, bunch of closed off spammers they are. As to your not entirely empirical source I really hope they're wrong.

I actually wound up watching Cars 2 this past weekend, and it really was dire, just a series of done-a-million-times plot shards thrown together with no particular coherence. Plus, the messages seemed to be a.) if you travel the world acting like an ugly American, making fun of the foreigners for their foreign ways, being a boor, and embarrassing your friends, you're just being true to yourself! Nobody should ever criticize you for that, and b.) some people are just born to be 'lemons', they're less valuable than other people, and they should accept their status as second class citizens.

Enjoy your movie, kids!

Pooh looks good though and is only an hour. Score.

Yeah, there's a drive-in here that always shows a double feature of a kids movie first and then an action movie or an R comedy or something, so I get inordinately excited about anything watchable for kids- and Pooh looks like a perfect drive-in movie. Although now I've seen Super 8, I can't think of any other mainstream Hollywood stuff I was looking forward to this summer.

Cowboys and Aliens, duh

My girlfriend nugged me after we saw that trailer and quietly asked, "didn't this already fail when it was Wild, Wild, West?"

Wild Wild West is better than whatever Will Smith movies are supposed to be good

Teevee show was better though.

matrixschmatrix wrote:I actually wound up watching Cars 2 this past weekend, and it really was dire, just a series of done-a-million-times plot shards thrown together with no particular coherence. Plus, the messages seemed to be a.) if you travel the world acting like an ugly American, making fun of the foreigners for their foreign ways, being a boor, and embarrassing your friends, you're just being true to yourself! Nobody should ever criticize you for that, and b.) some people are just born to be 'lemons', they're less valuable than other people, and they should accept their status as second class citizens.

Thankfully, Cars is just about the only Pixar film that neither of my kids has ever cared for, so I can probably get away with giving this one a miss. No chance of skipping Harry Potter 7.2, mind.

matrixschmatrix wrote:I actually wound up watching Cars 2 this past weekend, and it really was dire, just a series of done-a-million-times plot shards thrown together with no particular coherence. Plus, the messages seemed to be a.) if you travel the world acting like an ugly American, making fun of the foreigners for their foreign ways, being a boor, and embarrassing your friends, you're just being true to yourself! Nobody should ever criticize you for that, and b.) some people are just born to be 'lemons', they're less valuable than other people, and they should accept their status as second class citizens.

This messaging confusion was a big feature of A Bug's Life, also. Despite all the seemingly sincere talk about the good of the colony, etc., I've never quite understood if Lasseter realized that they actually made a movie about how everything turned out OK once the colony's timid old guard started doing things Flik's way.

matrixschmatrix wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:29 pm Actually, Duncan Jones is a pretty exciting director to me- he's working more or less within Hollywood, and he's two for two on thoughtful, entertaining movies made within a broadly Hollywood mode.

I think it's hard to see who the up-and-coming directors are, because we by definition don't know where they're going yet- it's hard to apply auteur theory to a director who's only made one or two movies. But Jones seems like a solid counter-example to Nothing's argument that the studios have no time to foster smaller directors with smaller budgets, and I do suspect that bottlenecking money into huge tentpole films is a cyclical matter- Hollywood's first and foremost goal is risk evasion, and if a couple of tentpoles crash, they'll be terrified to spend that much on any one movie for a decade.

Not to resurrect an ancient thread, but could Dark Phoenix be it, a bonafide crashing tentpole?

hollyharry wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:12 am

Maybe Hollywood will one day, out of economic desperation, start letting the inmates run the asylum (which is basically what happened in the 70's), but the culture as a whole has to change. The reason why say, The Godfather, is one of the greatest films ever made is because it combines pulpish material with a genuine attempt by a young director to make a Great Work Of Art. This ambition, this attempt to make films about ideas existed then because of the culture before it. There seems to me, nothing comparable in today's "culture" to the seeds that were sewn in the 50's and then eventually, the 60's. With this, I don't think you'll be in disagreement.

As for something comparable in today's "culture", perhaps this ignores the elephant in the room, which is democratized access to film history in HD via labels like Criterion, Eureka and the like.

rrenault wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:22 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:29 pm Actually, Duncan Jones is a pretty exciting director to me- he's working more or less within Hollywood, and he's two for two on thoughtful, entertaining movies made within a broadly Hollywood mode.

I think it's hard to see who the up-and-coming directors are, because we by definition don't know where they're going yet- it's hard to apply auteur theory to a director who's only made one or two movies. But Jones seems like a solid counter-example to Nothing's argument that the studios have no time to foster smaller directors with smaller budgets, and I do suspect that bottlenecking money into huge tentpole films is a cyclical matter- Hollywood's first and foremost goal is risk evasion, and if a couple of tentpoles crash, they'll be terrified to spend that much on any one movie for a decade.

Not to resurrect an ancient thread, but could Dark Phoenix be it, a bonafide crashing tentpole?

No? It's made $142 million worldwide and counting, and will surely clear its budget by the time it's out of theaters and then some. Was it a huge success? Not by a long shot, but why would hugely profitable tentpole films stop being made because one of them broke even?