Maybe^^, but I think Pixar’s human’s have more character in their design.
With the exception of humans, Pixar has the better character designs.
I was about to say, Pixar’s humans have a more cartoony look.
I think that’s done purposefully ^^.
Yeah, I wanted to correct myself on that. I don’t really like Pixar’s human character designs.
Pixar isn’t perfect, it has flaws that Dreamworks is better at. And Dreamworks has flaws that Pixar is better at.
True. Dreamworks just seems like a little rival to Pixar.
It’s like that with all rivals.
Yes, no studio is perfect. Even Pixar can’t do some right. Just saying we should give others a chance too.
I think DreamWorks have very good humans, but does anyone think that the background models look exactly the same sans appropriate clothing in all of their films?
That actually is true ^^.
Back on topic, my theory is that Disney wanted to make a sequel to Cars, and Lasseter (seeing how the first film was his personal project), went along with it.
That could be. Disney is alway’s looking for a way to make exra money.
It’s most likely that that’s what happened.^^
Yep. It reminded me of Disney doing the direct-to video sequels back when Eisner was at Disney.
Do you think this should of been direct-to video?
I don’t know. Since I think Disney wanted to do the project more, I guess it should of. It would of been better though since it wouldn’t hurt Pixar’s brand name in the long run.
That’s true, I know they pushed it back a year, what film was suppose to come in 2011?
I believe it was Newt where Cars 2’s release date was and Brave was supposed to come out around Christmas time last year. Could be wrong on that.
I think Pixar has its falls but I think Dreamworks always falls very short with every movie they do. I’ve just never enjoyed them so I’m biased.shrug
I don’t think Disney was the one to initiate Cars 2. I just don’t see Disney meddling into Pixar’s affairs that much.
I don’t think so. Let’s be honest, direct-to-video movies are movies no one wants to watch. Pixar would never do one of those.