No judgment passed, just speculation about story and characters that are already very neatly wrapped up in a box. As noted earlier, there is room for a Pixar surprise IF a Nemo sequel is actually in the works and eventually gets made (even if it is confirmed by Pixar and enters pre-production, it could go the way of newt). We’ll have more info about Pixar’s ability to pull off sequels after Monsters University comes out.
Presenting potential storylines as reasons for why the sequel is “not desirable” did seem a tad judgmental of the whole idea, which is why I said that. But, yeah, I anxiously await Monsters University not because I expect it to be as good as the original, but because I’m really curious how they’re going to pull it off. Of all the movies Pixar has released, none have made me as nervous as it. Not even Cars 2. The original wasn’t exactly a work of art, though I did rather enjoy it, and so there wasn’t much for it to ruin. Whereas Monsters, Inc. ended so perfectly and felt so self-contained that a prequel has me worried, even though I thought the teaser looked great.
Travis, I think we’re largely in agreement on things here. My point was that I wasn’t pre-judging a possible Nemo sequel as a bad film, which would be silly. By “not desirable,” I mean I’d rather see Pixar develop other (non-sequel) ideas. Sorry I wasn’t clear. The potential storylines listed are not the only possible ways out of the box, but they constitute a big chunk of the possible paths given the constraints of story and character while retaining some of the original’s spirit–surely the point of making a sequel to begin with. Sure, Pixar could surprise us all with a nightmarish Nemo sequel about sushi zombies, or some such, but why would they do that? Further, regardless of what I personally want/hope to see from Pixar, and being as objective as possible, attempting a Nemo sequel would be tricky at best for Pixar, ill-advised at worst…because of the inherent limitations of story and character and how high the original set the bar for emotional resonance. In other words, the law of diminishing returns is a fact of life for the majority of sequels.
As for Pixar’s track record with sequels…IMO, Toy Story 2 is the one that most “had” to be made, and arguably it’s the only one that exceeded its predecessor. TS3 is a mixed bag: Pixar did pretty well with it in parts, enough to make it worthwhile even if the main body of the film is largely a rehash of ideas already explored. As noted elsewhere, I’d like to see more Cars sequels produced by DisneyToon Studios, a fitting avenue for that franchise as Cars 2 is on par with the TinkerBell direct-to-DVD movies…which, by the way, I like and think are worthwhile and well-made.
On Monsters, IMO, the Circle 7 idea was the most promising to come out of that ill-fated unit. Sequel, prequel, or midquel, the original concept lends itself to some expansion because of the age of the characters and the age of Boo. Exploring an older Boo or younger Mike/Sully makes sense, although I agree that the original ended perfectly. There was no need for a Monsters sequel, but it’s coming regardless, ready to be received by those with open minds. Granted, perhaps a future Monsters Kindergarten would stretch the notion a bit too far.
All told, age of characters is a problem with Nemo and with further Toy Story sequels. We’ve seen Andy grow up and complete his cycle with toys. It would be a retread to do the same with Bonnie. And as Nemo grows up, he might be explored as a “teen” or a parent, the latter of which puts him into Marlin’s shoes (or would that be scales?), but how much of the original’s magic would that capture? Especially for those who have seen The Little Mermaid II, the possibilities there are mixed at best.
Well, that’s a lot of blowhard-ish typing for a project that might never even come to pass, but, hey, it’s fun to slosh things around.
I fully believe that Pixar is being honest when they say they will only make a sequel if they come up with a story as good, if not better, than the original’s. And word is that the studio loves the story, so while it is treacherous territory to venture into, I’ll wait to see what that story is to judge the idea of a sequel to Finding Nemo in any way, as I’ve said before.
I would’ve been quite interested in seeing Boo all grown up, but I don’t know if that, or what they ended up going with, is enough to sustain a feature-length movie.
The Little Mermaid II was made by Disney’s B Team, and even that’s being generous. Finding Nemo 2, if the rumors are true, will be headed by the same guy who wrote and directed the original. Now I’m not saying that guarantees brilliance or anything of the sort, just that it undoubtedly would be better than that by virtue of being produced by Stanton and Pixar.
Sounds like you might have info that’s not publicly available!
As for Disney’s B team…that’s true to a point. But a fair question is whether anyone could make a diminished-return sequel concept work well. In other words, were the DisneyToon sequels sub-par because of their execution or because the whole notion of the sequels was flawed to begin with? I tend toward the latter notion and attribute less-than-stellar execution more to budget and time constraints than anything else. Some of those sequels were produced by different units around the globe…not a recipe for greatness, and probably a triumph of questionable management over creative talent. The A team(s) of Disney/Pixar tend to throw a lot more time and money at their projects…but as you pointed out, that’s no guarantee of brilliance.
I’d like to believe that, as well. Right now the evidence is in balance, considering the merits and flaws of TS2, TS3, and Cars 2. Monsters University might tip the scales one way or the other. We shall see…
No, I read that in an article about the rumors.
And, on the subject of Disney sequels, I actually liked 101 Dalmatians II, Bambi II, and Cinderella III more than the originals. Blasphemy, I know. 
I love how you have this complaint about TS3’s structure and yet applaud UP when it has the same problem. And in response to one of your earlier posts, TS2 didn’t ‘need’ to be made. TS2 started its life as an unauthorized direct-to-video sequel and was re-tooled by Lassetter so that Pixar would stay in business and not be embarassed by a faulty product. But it was TS3 that the public was waiting for with bated breath.
Hello, Travis and welcome to the boards! I must apologize because when I first read your blog, I misinterpreted it for being a hashing on Pixar until I realized you were referring to the critics and critic-like fans. Actually, my opinions are basically the same as yours. Even the parts about you enjoying Cars 2 a lot and having some slight disappointments of Toy Story 3. I agree that Pixar makes their sequels well-crafted and with a purpose. Some of the negative speculators feel the need to up the bars when Pixar never asked for them, and the idea of what Pixar should be instead of is seems to be all in some people’s heads, I think.
I also understand what you meant by WALL-E, Up, and TS3 being the “most impressive streak”. Not that they are, but most people say that. Sometimes they’re treated like they are above the other films because they were SO different, but really, they weren’t. WALL-E was praised too highly because there was no dialogue in the first act (which technically isn’t true); this fact alone seemed to many people love the film. Up has an incredible moment in animation history, and anyone who’s seen it will always praise the first fifteen minutes (closer to second six minutes) above the rest of the film. However, because Pixar did just one or a few things differently, people act like those movies are new pedestals. If you don’t focus so much on that one factor, you’ll see it’s just as good as any Pixar movie with a different aspect to it. (In case you’re confused, I love WALL-E and Up - just about as much as the others).
I didn’t think TS3 would be so intentionally emotional. I had thought this would be 3-way tied with my first 2 favorite films of all time. Instead, it became my least favorite Pixar film. You see, in my opinion, TS was never meant to be so dramatic or realistic. Toy Story was already great the “way” it was. I think Lee Unkrich had the right story to tell; he just didn’t do it completely right in my opinion. Mostly the fact that he got rid of many beloved toys upsets me even if it was to make a story point, and at this point they might as well have already been destroyed at the dump. 
The ending also doesn’t bring the closure I was thinking of; it just says the cycle will repeat, possibly worse than the last time. How people missed this? Nostalgia, I suppose, made people obligate themselves to think that this movie was superior for the risks it took while missing the fact that they were not done in an equal fashion to its predecessors. It’s because of the first two and its characters that makes people think that 3 is incredible (I still like it, though).
Cars 2 is not a cash crab (Mattel can do what they want with what they’ve got). I don’t know how people who trust Pixar so much could say that so easily. This is an example of when a sequel does fine work. Some of you may have missed this, but I think John Lasseter was trying to educate his audience with the spy plot and some of the complex thinking the spies went through. He just wanted the watchers to do a little more thinking, and he balanced this out by having Mater star in it. It’s not like he’s plain dumb or stays EXACTLY the same; he learns what people really think, and he does all he can to prove to a good guy that he is the best friend of all time and will do anything to save him. Wouldn’t any friend want that? I love that message, but critics ^obligated themselves^ to hate how it didn’t have an aspect like the films before it. It had a different one, though, one that just tried to help audiences take it easy and enjoy the fact that there are good people out there who shouldn’t need to change because they are busy trying to help others be good, too (like how he helped LMcQ in Cars). Watch it with a new eye, I think you’ll like it.
Back on topic, FN2 might be true. Either way, I think you (in general) should let the proven director tell you (in general) what the plot is. If it’s even true, Andrew Stanton must have a good reason for it. He wants to make sure his characters are in a worthy movie. Give him AND the movie a chance, even if it means going against overly ridiculous negative criticism to have faith in a film you’ll enjoy and a company you like. Please, to all, just trust your studio!
What same problem does Up have? The point about TS2 is that…IMO, of course, but easily supported on another topic if required…it substantially expanded/improved upon the original TS concept. The same can’t easily be demonstrated for TS3. It’s hard to see how “the public” waited for TS3 with bated breath when there are so many Pixar fans who prefer the non-sequels to the sequels. Maybe that’s a basis for differences of opinion here…do you want to be surprised by new situations that Pixar presents, or do you want to see established/beloved Pixar characters get in new adventures, or maybe a mix? There’s no right or wrong answer, and certainly there is no such thing as consensus about Pixar…other than that the majority of folks here probably love Pixar films enough to form strong opinions about them. Which is a good thing.
Re: TS2, although my meaning was different, it looks like TS2 really did “have” to be made as you described, WBB!
As for Up, it’s hard to see how it sags in the middle if that’s what is meant, WBB and LQsP. Like the film or not, the thing is very unpredictable as to what’s going to happen next, at least from the standpoint of the first-time viewer. And the narrative progression builds to a very satisfying resolution. That’s classic good storytelling and a rehash of nothing, save perhaps the usual Pixar references to other works, which is fair game. Again, it depends on what you’re looking for from Pixar in general and a possible Nemo sequel–which first has to be announced by Pixar to be believed–in particular.
A sequel to the one Pixar movie that really has no reason at all to have one?
I don’t want to believe that they’ve turned into a studio that cares more about money than artistic integrity. I really don’t…
Maybe I’ve been in denial ever since Cars 2 was announced.
I never said that Up sags in the middle. I said I love Up and I meant it. All I was saying was that after the married life sequence (which is good), the movie is still a very good movie and on par with the rest of the Pixar classics. It is just as good and funny and entertaining in its own way. What may have been misunderstood is that I don’t put Up above almost all the rest just for that one sequence, and the reason I don’t do that is because its enjoyment level is equal to those of the other Pixar movies to me. The emotional parts were done very well, too and act as that special factor to that movie.
Well, Cars 2 was only done because the studio had a good idea for it. Lots of critics and fans made up in their head that it was a cash grab just because it is successful with merchandise. Also, there wouldn’t be so much of it if people didn’t already love the first movie. Plus, Mattel has a lot to do with the toy-making, so I wouldn’t blame Pixar. However, that myth caused people to already make up in their mind (probably) that they weren’t going to like the movie, which is why they didn’t or believed they didn’t. But Weirdojace, you don’t have to believe they care more about money than integrity…because they don’t. They have D23 expo conventions to show off to their fans the fun and exciting projects they have going on. Making movies to them is a big deal and they love it. Nothing they turn out would be entertaining if they were only trying to earn money. Even though Finding Nemo 2 is a difficult picture to, well, picture, that’s sort of not the fans’ place to know if it works or not. That is up to the studio who will be working on the film up until it is released. For me, I’m just going to wait and see if it’s even real, and wait to make thoughts on the movie until it’s finally released, if it even will be.
I want to give you a hug, LQstudiesPixar and modeltrainman, for understanding 
Same for anyone else here who believes a FN2 could be promising!
I think that every Pixar sequel has been extremely well-done and pure awesomesauce (Wow, I just said “awesomesauce”?! The seriousness of this post just went out the window! ), but the great thing is the the films that started it all weren’t “just begging for a sequel or two”, they were satisfactory on their own. And when Pixar decided to make sequels for them, they simply added onto the awesomeness and gave us a chance to see our favorite characters again! A great series of movies is like a great series of books: if you love the characters and love joining their adventures, why end it after just one? And hey, I’ve managed to survive my entire life without ever seeing a sequel that I felt was inadequate or just plain bad. So if a second Nemo comes out in five years, I’ll be in the theater on opening day weekend - guarantee it! 
Oh, I wouldn’t put Up above the others just for that one sequence, either. It’s my favorite Pixar film because of the message and the pure creativity behind the story and characters, not for that sequence alone. I mean, it’s well done, but you can’t judge a movie based on one small part of it. All of us have our favorite Pixar films for our own reasons, though!
I don’t think Cars 2 was made for purely monetary reasons (although Disney surely didn’t object to this decision, considering how lucrative the franchise is!). I don’t think John Lasseter would have allowed that, especially with a film that’s basically his child. I honestly do believe that Lasseter thought it was a good story and a good film. While I have great respect for Lasseter, I also think he’s biased where Cars is concerned (understandably), and he was unable to see some of the flaws with Cars 2. To me, at least, Cars 2 felt like a story that needed to get cut in production stages like Newt or at least significantly altered, because it just didn’t work. Again, that’s just my opinion, I know many of you disagree, and that’s okay 
I also don’t think Monsters U is being made for the money, because it’s just so unexpected. I can’t really see a reason for its existence apart from a good story- was anyone out there really clamoring for a sequel/prequel?. Perhaps someone had a good idea and Pixar needed a film to fill the 2013 slot after Newt was canned and pushed everything forward, because these upcoming original projects needed more production time. Hence, Monsters U. But still, I do have high hopes for it, even if it will be predictable in the sense that we already know that Mike and Sulley will have to be friends in the end.
My concern with Nemo, apart from the fact that the film really doesn’t allow for the possibility of sequels, is that the initial articles about this implied that it would be used as a sort of atonement for Stanton after John Carter, which would then allow him to work on more films at Disney. That would be such an awful reason to make a film- ANY film- and it would also mean a loss of integrity where Stanton & co. are concerned. I’m glad that Stanton has put the Nemo 2 rumor to rest, at least for now, because I don’t want to think that he nor anyone else at Pixar would agree to create a film for this reason. Although all of us have different opinions on a Nemo sequel, we can probably agree that we wouldn’t want to see Pixar make any film under these circumstances.
Has anyone looked at the filmography of this so-called screenwriter for FN2, Victoria Strouse …? She has credits over at rottentomatoes for a single movie, in 2002, with a 5% TM rating. You read that right. Now remember that the first movie A.S. probably ever saw Taylor Kitsch (John Carter) in was Covenant, a movie about a location two towns from where he grew up, and had a 3% TM rating. Other than this singular movie, she has been involved in television writing. I’m not actually familiar with the success of these shows, anyone?
Just a note, screenwriting at this stage does not mean storytelling, there is a slight difference. We don’t know how well developed A.S. has made this idea before handing it to anyone for an actual script to then be debated and eventually converted into a story reel.
Edit: she also was one of the 3 screenwriters for Little Fockers, a horrible movie, with a 10% TM rating, but made nearly $150M. I found out that she graduated from Tufts, north of Boston, and I found this while trying to find out if she lived near Mill Valley(A.S. hometown) or Berkeley(next to Emeryville) or Boston (A.S. born 30 mi. distant) originally, as Mr. Stanton has an affectation for people from these areas. Michael Chabon, screenwriter for J.C. of Mars lives in Berkeley, a few miles drive away from the studios. Chabon was noted for Mysteries of Pittsburgh and The Wonder Boys, a big movie, critical raves, but not a blockbuster. Ben Burtt lives on the other side of the mountain near Mill Valley.
Plz, plz don’t let this part of the rumor be true, maybe he met her at a get-together somewhere. President Lincoln had to deal with people of lesser abilities early in the Great Civil War, before he reamed them out and got Ulysses Grant to do the general’n. Hopefully, during the first year of story development in pre-production this will happen to FN2, if anyone comes up well short of excellent proven abilities.
DHOSW: After reading your post, I’m even less inclined to believe that the FN2 rumors are true. Didn’t know a screenwriter had been named. Where do these article writers get their info? Also, it seems there’s a lot of circular referencing among dubious “sources.” Guh.
Now Has Guilt: Excellent points about Lasseter/Stanton and bias/atonement. You’ve pointed out elephants in the room, no need for guilt about it! Agreed, the hope is that Pixar continues to make great films true to their collective muse.
It could be that the Nemo 2 rumors have started because greater Hollywood is more cynical than the upbeat Pixar ethic (as imbued in its films and celebrated by its fans). In other words, certain types of folk love to see creative talents rise high and fall hard, either to rise again or languish forever in the doldrums. The precedents are too numerous to list, although one interesting example of “atonement” involves a sequel: Spielberg and the Temple of Doom. There was huge demand for that sequel (prequel, actually), and few would dispute that it was a step backward for many reasons. Then, Spielberg “atoned” for it and publicly acknowledged same with The Last Crusade and, later, by bringing back Karen Allen in Crystal Skull.
So the atonement thing can happen. Even so, it would be a great shame if Stanton were being shabbily used by the Hollywood rumor mill. IMO, he has no great sin to atone for in John Carter, as noted on that movie’s topic. All hopes that he embraces whatever next project most consumes and enthralls him.
I’m with the three of you. high fives
I should add that I’m heavily biased. I didn’t see the flaws in Cars 2, either. But that has a lot to do with the way my life has gone…
High-fives K9Girl back
I’m either just plain biased or else I’m just plain naive… but I can’t see a single flaw in any of Pixar’s movies!
Same here. hifives both
I like that attitude! I mean, I might not say they are all completely perfect though some are, but all are overall excellent films. I also feel bad because it may have sounded like I was bashing Toy Story 3. It may be my least favorite, but that’s only because it made me sad some of the time to see my favorite toys being in such peril or not even showing up in the movie. Even still, I really enjoyed it for its comedy and heartfelt moments. It had Lee directing instead of John, though, which might be the main yet slight reason why. Sorry for overreacting.
However, that brings me to my next point. If FN2 is real, at least Andrew Stanton would direct, and likely nobody is better for the job than him.