MENU

Comments (51) Monsters, Inc. 2 (Monsters University), News

Monsters, Inc. 2: A Prequel?

Could the long rumored, (relatively) recently confirmed follow-up to Monsters, Inc. actually be a prequel?

According to rumors stemming from the Dutch animation blog, Animatie, that may just be the case. Although the project’s core creative team has yet to be confirmed, a couple of plot details are currently being claimed.

The ramblings are as follows: Thanks to a 2011/2012 catalogue released by Walt Disney Pictures, we now know that Monsters, Inc. 2 may follow Mike and Sulley’s studies at the University of Fear. Turns out they had quite the rivalry back then…

Monsters, Inc. 2 is set to be released exactly 11 years after its 2001 predecessor, on November 2nd, 2012.

What do you think about this rumor? Good idea? True or false?

(via /Film)

51 Responses to Monsters, Inc. 2: A Prequel?

  1. Anonymous says:

    Wow, this is just like those direct to video sequels Disney used to do. Great, just great.

  2. Phoenician says:

    …except that this is with the creative heads of PIXAR … whether it be true or not, I’m excited 🙂

  3. I think it’s an awesome idea! I’m sure they’re gonna pull it off, although I was looking fowarding to seeing a sequel, it would’ve been so impressive if they made it good.
    The only thing is people are gonna get confused, they’re probably expecting Boo and stuff

  4. Anonymous says:

    WHY?

  5. Anonymous says:

    Isn’t that Boo U from Dreamworks :O Oh the horror.

  6. bjc92 says:

    I actually like the idea of a prequel. Number one, it’s something Pixar has never done before. Number two, they’re getting kind of sequel heavy with the Toy Stories, Cars, and who knows what the future may hold. Number three, I believe the original Monsters, Inc. was wrapped up quite nicely. I almost feel like the original might be ruined if they did a sequel. That’s just my opinion though.

  7. Anonymous says:

    There was a game for the original PlayStation that acted as a prequel. I think this rumor might be, you know, just a rumor.

  8. uruseiranma says:

    Talking Cars? Pixar is doomed!!

    A chef rat? Pixar is doomed!!

    A pantomime robot? Pixar is doomed!!

    An old man as a lead? Pixar is doomed!!

    A sequel for talking cars? Pixar is doomed!!

    A Monsters prequel? Pixar is doomed!!

    Boy, these doomsayers are as accurate as that one guy I see on Michigan Ave who changes his sandwich board of doom every 2 months.

  9. I think I’m the only person on this forum who doesn’t have one bad thing to say about any Pixar movie. I have all the faith in the world for Pixar and it’s a shame that people still don’t trust them. I agree with uruseiranma.

    Also, honestly, if you don’t like the movie, just don’t see it. Apparently people forgot how to do simple things. Bashing a movie that hasn’t even come yet is a pretty complicated thing, considering it didn’t come out. I think it’s pretty rude to Pixar too. Those negative people act as if Pixar owes them something. If anything, we owe them. We owe them the trust in that they’re going to succeed like they always do.

    Always.

    Get it yet?

    Always.

    They work very hard on these movies and those negative people have the nerve to base a whole movie off a rumor, a trailer, or even a teaser? That’s so gross.

  10. This sounds far better than a sequel in my humble opinion. The ending of the first Monsters, Inc. was beautifully done and nicely tied up every loose end; as I’ve said before, any attempt to add onto the end of that would damage the original.

    However a prequel could be fantastic. It’d be a great way to revisit the world without stepping on the toes of such a beautiful ending. If this rumor turns out true I can actually finally get excited about this project.

  11. Anonymous says:

    no, this shouldnt be a prequel i read this awesome plot idea about like 20 years in the future and this plot actually has boo in it! It should be pretty sweet

  12. Anonymous says:

    uruseiranma and x3haijessiex3, You both are awesome. 😀 I agree with both of you completely.

  13. Anonymous says:

    When I heard that Pixar was making a second Monsters Inc movie, I was thinking “Why would they do this? The original had a great ending.” But now, I’m really excited to see it. Pixar has never made a terrible movie and I don’t think they’ll start anytime soon.

  14. “uruseiranma and x3haijessiex3, You both are awesome. 😀 I agree with both of you completely.”

    Wow! Thanks! 🙂

  15. Anonymous says:

    WHY? Money!

    And since the first director, Doug Sweetland, left the film and Pixar, it’s curious.

  16. That’s another thing I’m sick of. People saying Pixar makes sequels, or in this case prequels, for money.

    I’m pretty sure they enjoy what they do and couldn’t care less if you saw the movie or not.

  17. @ the most recent Anonymous

    Doug Sweetland? face palm

  18. Anonymous says:

    x3haijessiex3: you’re not the only one, another one over here!

    I think this is a great idea! As someone noted before, of all the Pixar movies Monsters, Inc. was the most finished concerning the story and characters. So I think this is definitely true, because I believe that Pixar thinks the exact same thing.

    I think that with Monstropolis telling the history of the city and characters is far more interesting than telling the future after the good ol’ times with Boo. 🙂

  19. Anonymous says:

    Yes, they do it for money—but not Pixar-Disney, who fully owns and operates them. Doesn’t mean the movie will be bad. But it is a simple, irrefutable fact that they’re doing it—along with Cars 2 and Toy Story 4 for the money. Disney is a publicly traded for profit company.

  20. uruseiranma says:

    @ latest anonymous post that now all PIXAR sequels/prequels are being done just for money.

    To quote a number of exasperated Warner Brothers characters:

    AAAHHHHHHHHHH SMACK SHADDUP!!!!

  21. Anonymous says:

    Just because you don’t want to hear it doesn’t make it any less true.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Why can’t 2012 come sooner. Monsters Inc 2, Cars Land, Grizzly Gulch and the Disney Fantasy are coming out 2012!

  23. Disney is greedy, but not Pixar.

    Like I said, they couldn’t care less if you pay them a cent to watch their films. They do it because it’s their passion. If they want to make a sequel or prequel to ANY of their movies, who are you to say it’s stupid? Who are you to say they’re doing it for money? That’s so gross to say about Pixar. They work too hard for comments like those.

  24. Anonymous says:

    To me it should be good either way. There hasn’t even been a single Pixar movie I haven’t liked. I’m sure if it’s a prequel it’ll turn out just fine, I trust Pixar to make a good movie

  25. Anonymous says:

    “Disney is greedy, but not Pixar.”

    Pixar IS Disney. And as of Jan. 24, according to SEC papers as part of the Disney/Pixar deal, Disney can do anything they want with Pixar. Don’t fool yourselves, Disney’s killed golden gooses in the past. Let’s hope the leave
    Disney/Pixar alone.

  26. Hey anonymous, If you’re so concerned by Pixar making these sequels because of greed, then do yourself a favor; don’t watch it. Simple.

    You know what? If they are doing it for greed, it sure is worth the money, unlike just a Disney film (ya know, without the Pixar) which you’re better off waiting for the DVD anyway.

  27. Anonymous says:

    I never said that. YOU said that. I said they did it for the money. I never said that was a BAD thing. And I’m not only sure they’ll be great movies, but huge moneymakers. It’s a business after all.

    Why do you think they’re doing the sequels because of greed?

  28. Anonymous says:

    If Pixar didn’t have such a nearly perfect track record with their movies, this wouldn’t be as big a deal as some of you are making it out to be. Everyone is anxiously awaiting their first failure. Have faith in Pixar; they have some insanely creative people on their team that, gasp, actually KNOW what they’re doing. Disney may be “greedy”, but Pixar is not. And they are definitely two different studios. Besides, John Lasseter is heavily prominent at both Disney and Pixar, and if he didn’t like an idea it wouldn’t get made. Period. Look at the original concept for Toy Story 3, or the fiasco between Disney and Pixar over Toy Story 2. Pixar ultimately has control over their movies, so relax.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Who is “everyone” awaiting Pixar’s “first failure?”. Sounds like you made that up. Can you name them? I don’t think that’s true.

  30. You obviously know he or she is talking about in general, and that person is right.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Ya know, I wouldn’t really call Disney money-grubbing sell-outs, at least not their animation studio ANY MORE. Perhaps you mean the company as a whole, which I don’t care to comment on, but if you mean WDAS then I would say you are dead wrong.

    Yes, they want money (so does PIXAR and every other movie studio), but they have really shaped themselves up recently with amazing works like Prep & Landing, Bolt, Princess and the Frog, and Tangled. Sorry to go off-topic but I just want that to be known; they’re not on top with quality like PIXAR, but they are definately the next best thing and, were they to continue to turn out films as amazing as those lifted above, I could see them being on the level of PIXAR in the not-to-distant future. Let’s hope.

  32. Anonymous says:

    All fine kids cartoons(except prep and landing, which I think is very over rated).

    But not one of them (not even Prep and Landing) turned a profit according to Variety.

    Which ony underscores my argument as to why Disney/Pixar is doing more sequels primarily for the money. They’re pre-sold. And I’m sure they’ll be fine films, too.

    But they WOULD NOT be doing them if the originals hadn’t been hits. They’re doing the sequels for the money.

  33. Um, no. They do it because they enjoy making movies. Pixar is different.

  34. Anonymous says:

    They’ve turned a profit alright. Tangled has far exceeded the studio’s internal projections by close to 50 million already, and that’s only domestically. Bolt only underperformed as far as it’s projections, and those were only not met because of it’s release date. It still crossed 200 million and then some as well as doing really well intenationally, which Tangled is sure to emulate. The only real underperformance would be Princess and the Frog, but once again the release date was horrible. The reason these movies don’t do as well as PIXAR’s is most likely bad timing. And kids flicks? C’mon man, they were so much more than that.

    Anyway, as far as PIXAR goes, why would they need to do sequels for money when their original films make so much to begin with. WALL-E met projections and Up almost crossed 300 million in 2009. Clearly they don’t need to rely on sequels for money; they can bring it in because of their quality stories and quality reputation (something WDAS still needs to build up to really make their excellent films successful). So, given their ability to make money with great original stories, maybe they just have found good stories for sequels.

    I mean, PIXAR always says they think of their characters as family, so why wouldn’t they try to think of good stories for sequels and make one if they find it good enough. Toy Story 3 made out in spades with quality story telling, so is it that hard to believe there’s great tales to be told of Lightning McQueen or Mike & Sully?

  35. Anonymous says:

    Oh, and I don’t know exactly where you heard Prep & Landing “underperformed”, but in case you were unaware that “over rated” Christmas special was the highest rated and most watched Christmas special last year, an achievement that made WDAS deem it worthy enough for not only a short and sequel (approached by the directors mind you), but also a possible package film in the style of “The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh” (the 1970’s release, not the upcoming 2011 one that’s already recieving positive word of mouth) for release around 2012.

  36. Anonymous says:

    “Um, no. They do it because they enjoy making movies. Pixar is different.”

    No they don’t. And yes they are.

    Tangled has not turned a profit. The budget was $260 million, plus another $100 million in prints and advertising. That means it has to GROSS $800 million World Wide to just BEGIN turning a profit.
    And Pixar doesn’t “rely” on sequels for money. But they’re doing them for the money. If you dropped a billion dollars from your pocket, wouldn’t you want it back?

  37. “If you dropped a billion dollars from your pocket, wouldn’t you want it back?”

    Not really, because like Pixar, I’m not greedy.

  38. Anonymous says:

    Then, like having a grasp on reality, that’s the difference between you and Pixar. And YOU said Pixar was greedy, not me.

    I just said that like every other business in the world, they’re smart to not leave money on the table.

    They’re doing the sequels for the money—that’s a fact. You are not entitled to your own facts.

  39. Anonymous says:

    In case nobody heard of this, Pixar said they’ll only make sequels if the story is as good as the original. They must have a brilliant story if this one isn’t true.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Way back in Walt Disney’s time, The Three Little Pigs was an immensely popular short. So popular that people wanted more, to which Walt replied “You can’t top pigs with pigs!”.

    Eventually, the pressure of demand was too high and the need for funds for more ambitious projects forced Walt to make a couple pig sequels. Perhaps this is happening with Pixar. Perhaps Pixar is caving in to the high demand for sequels to their beloved films so that they can continue more “edgy” films like Wall-E and Up.

  41. Anonymous says:

    That’s why Walt made 3 more Pig shorts I suppose…which he did. And of course, the stories must and will be good. This has NEVER been about quality. Just motives. There is nothing wrong with doing these for money.

  42. Anonymous says:


    HYKQ&feature=related

  43. Anonymous says:

    And Walt did t for the money. Afforded him a financial cushion to do other things.

  44. Anonymous says:

    I’m not sure where you get a gross of $800 million worldwide as profit for Tangled considering it’s cost of budget and marketing only combines to $360 million. And let us not forget that Tangled also marks a milestone in being one of their highest grossing films and has a chance of passing $200 million domestically. It’s worldwide gross has already accumulated back the budget and marketing costs while still not having opened in a few major territories or at least just begginning its run there. Tangled is not a dissapointment. It isn’t Toy Story 3 as far as money-making goes, but it sure is healthy for WDAS.

    Back on point, the fact that their films make money still doesn’t change the fact that their originals make enough money y their own merits. These sequels were also well into production before Toy Story 3 garnered a billion dollars so that fact is irrelevant. Lee Unkrich has even said that he was completely suprised by “how much people are embracing this film” (ie: how much revenue this is bringing in). They simply have good ideas for more stories in these worlds, otherwise they would have had Brad Bird sign off on Teddy Newton or another director for The Incredibles 2 or Andrew Stanton do the same with Bob Peterson or someone else on Finding Nemo 2. Am I wrong, or has PIXAR announced Up 2 for 2013?

  45. Anonymous says:

    And since when has Cars been considered ragingly successful? Cars was labeled as below expectations for most of the summer of 2006. If you don’t believe me then look up some articles on the subject in Variety, the Wall Street Journal, or even Disney news sites like Jim Hill Media. If anything was less deserving of a sequel as far as money is concerned it’s Cars. Hence, perhaps they just might have found something great to do with the folks from Radiator Springs and Monstropolis.

  46. Anonymous says:

    Standard (and accepted) accounting for motion pictures (http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Economist-Hidden-Financial-Reality/dp/1933633840/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1294880453&sr=1-2”

    Tangled cost $260 million to make, plus $120 million to market. That’s $380 million. Double that to break even. Standard, and accurate.

    And cars IS ragingly successful. 8 Billion and counting—ancilliary merchendise (TOYS!). They’re not going to leave that money on the table—which is why they’re making the sequel. Cars alone has made more than all of dreamworks films put together (and dw films don’t move many toys)

    And “jim hill” is not a “news” site. He’s a liar and a hack fanboy.

  47. Anonymous says:

    By that standpoint, Monsters Inc didn’t bring in much money from merchandising. So, once again, why not sequalize something more financially successful like Up, The Incredibles, or Finding Nemo?

  48. Anonymous says:

    According to that book, ticket revenue only accounts for a small percentage of a films gross revenue now a days. Other factors like merchandising and home video sales factor in much too.

    So, when taking these into consideration I would say Tangled has quite the chance of meeting or surpassing that number, given how well its merchandise has been selling. Seriously, Toys R Us and Walmart can’t keep that stuff on the shelves. And Disney home video releases always sell very well, they have been since the introduction of the VCR. Tangled is sure to make a lot off of those sales considering that it has proven more popular than the last few WDAS releases, which made a good amount of revenue off DVD sales (and merchandising as far as Princess and the Frog is concerned in addition to Tangled).

  49. Anonymous says:

    Video sales are down 50%, and Tangled toys didn’t do very wel. They’re off the shelves because the toys were returned (according to walmart)l. Of course, as everyone knows, the BIG bucks come when sold to tv markets around the world. Tangled is a good film, but a very mild hit (although bigger than the even milder b.o. of lilo/stich.)

    But Disney is a publicly traded company, and stockholders want results. Now.

  50. Anonymous says:

    I personally disagree the ending was complete and perfect, I think a sequel actually needed- but in any case I mostly only like the idea of the enemies-> friends thing here. The idea of a scaring university is pretty rediculous considering we saw training in the actual factory.

    Also I do not agree with the idea we ‘owe’ Pixar anything as someone posted above. Because we don’t. They make the movies, we ultimately pay to see them. That’s as far as it goes. They do not give us these movies for free. When I enjoy a movie I praise it. and the majority of Pixar movies I have liked. If I’ve seen a movie and did not like it I’m not going to praise it and if it’s an open forum I will say that in hopefully a polite way. Just because it’s not utterly filled with praise doesn’t mean there aren’t valid points to be made. I mean even with my least favourite movie, I do have the odd good thing to say- even though overall I would say I’m disappointed and why. (And no, my least favourite isn’t Cars.)

    The idea however that we literally ‘owe’ Pixar anything is pretty silly in my opinion however. I haven’t actually enjoyed every single one of their movies (wow, big deal), and I’m apprehensive about this prequel idea. Not really in the sense it’s a prequel but that fact the concept doesn’t appear to fit the actual movie canon very well at all.

    Of course I do invite Pixar to prove me wrong. Perhaps more details are required. Plus a lot of Pixar movies do sound rediculous on paper, even the ones I liked. As of right now, I will just state I’m a touch pessimistic which is somewhat natural seeing as I only like most but not all of Pixar’s movies not to mention it doesn’t seem to fit the established canon very well at all.

  51. Anonymous says:

    You know what I think? I think you should all shut up : L Jesus Christ it’s a film you don’t like the idea? You don’t watch it Disney/pixar is owned by john lasseter he won’t let Disney kill anything he created… As for their films there’s been no major flop! And I’m sorry but the title of their JOB says they did it for money! They may enjoy it too but they aren’t goin to do this for free!!! Well : D prequel/sequel they’ll both do well… It’ll be the same thing as toy story 11 years on with new current and older audiences… Even if it sucks! It’ll do well and if randy newmans overscores again then were in for a treat : )

Join the Discussion!