Seriously though, I’m not so hung up by Randall’s injustice in the first movie (readies riot shield), but I’m siding with you guys that he will earn some form of redemption in the second (Although, judging from the TS sequels, former villains rarely make a return visit).
I’m very, very pleased MI is getting a new lease, and that The Bear and… sorry Brave is on schedule. But it looks likes Pixar is going to follow DW’s route of two-releases-a-year. Would this mean Cars 2 is coming out next year? And where the heck is Newt? All this reshuffling of release dates is making me confused.
Of course if M.I. 2 includes Randall as the main “villain” (note I didn’t say “again”), ALLOT of people will get ticked off. I mean that. Allot of his fans have been doing things for YEARS to get Pixar’s attention on the subject with 0 response. taps head You know…Zerg kinda gets himself I guess a sorta “appearence” in TS 1…I mean he kinda is kinked into Buzz’s persona at the time.
I’m wondering about Newt too. What happened to the director? This was his premire as one RIGHT? What happened to him? Is he alright with having (supposedly) the movie canned? And what about everyone else working on it. People if my memory serves me right this would be the FIRST Pixar movie to get tossed out.
I can’t wait enough for Monsters Inc. 2! With the exception of Cars, I think Pixar’s really nailed it on which films they decided to give the sequel treatment to. To me, Monsters Inc. was always the funniest Pixar film so it will be great to see it get the reboot.
Why would they even announce Newt in that previous lineup if they were speculating MI 2? I also think it’s too many sequels, too many things for little kids, and that it might become too commercial. I remember being more excited for Newt than I was for anything else in that lineup. It seemed like t was going to be a more adult, maybe even raunchy comedy, and with PIXAR, that probably would have worked.
I’m sad to see PIXAR following th money instead of following innovation or story.
PLEASE, I IMPLORE YOU!!! RESURRECT NEWT!!!
But, there is this that makes me think Newt is still in the pipeline:
Also, the wikipedia and I think the imdb pages still say that Newt is scheduled for June 2012. I hope so.[/img]
Well, I’m willing to say this, IllusionOfLife: though I have completely different reasons for my position, I agree with you that there’s a high chance that Pixar will screw up the M.I. franchise with this sequel. Not that they haven’t done that already as of recently, though.
First, let me make this clear to everyone: though the portrayal of a certain character in M.I. is indeed a major reason for me to not look forward to this, it is NOT the only reason. Certain comics endorsed by Pixar have M.I. issues so UN-faithful to the movie (and, again, it’s not limited to said character’s portrayal) that I fear that Pixar really HAS come to something bad, at least in regards to this particular creation of theirs. I should probably give examples that DON’T relate to the portrayal of said character in the comics:
Boo is at LEAST three years old in these comics, according to the first film, yet the writer seems to think that M.I. is like the Simpsons in that characters don’t age at all.
Randall returns in two of the issues, and there is NO mention whatsoever of how he got back.
In the first issue, Mike and Sulley’s roles have somewhat inverted in regards to Boo: Mike brings Boo back into the Monster World in an attempt to cheer Sulley up, and Sulley doesn’t want it, as it could result in a scandal, yet, in the film, Mike was the same monster who wanted to get rid of her as soon as possible, and Sulley had wanted to be with Boo as long as possible towards the end!
Somewhere a crossover was decided to be necessary for no reason, and Sid Phillips of Toy Story appears in two of the issues. That there is DIRECT proof of unoriginality, as they couldn’t even think of stuff strictly within the M.I. universe! Combine that with the impossibility of him being able to bust out two criminals from a high-security prison in one of the issues (reminder: he’s only a TEEN!), whom he never even met before, and even pinning Celia down in a rapist position!
But the creepiest part, to me, does not have to do with these comics, themselves: the artist personally told me that it is 100% faithful to what Pixar created, and described it as extended canon!
Pixar thinking differently and letting this crud spread simultaneously does not strike me as realistic at all. That said, I’m honestly VERY scared about what the storyline is going to be.
Tell me about it. To me it was quite depressing even without Sid’s newfound criminal behavior. And he doesn’t even belong in this franchise!
Anyway, bottom line: though, again, I have different reasons than many people for not looking forward to the sequel to M.I., I WILL agree that it may not be worth it, given what we have so far, especially as of recently.
Hmm, you bring up some very interesting points. I think, though, that Pixar has perhaps gotten too big. John Lasseter had said that Pixar’s quality needs to shine through, not only in the feature films but also in the merchandising, however, from the sounds of the comics, they’re getting rushed out without review or much refinement.
I don’t think that will be the case with Monsters, Inc. 2, I think that Pixar will create a good movie, I honestly do. However, Monsters, Inc. needs no sequel and a forced continuation will only hurt the first, no matter how good the second is. There’s not enough narrative potential to rip open the seal of the first movie and try to build on top of it.
That’s the only rational explanation I can think up of for this. I heard of their rule of listening to fans, yet, as of recently, as far as we know, they didn’t even do that! There might still be a thread in the M.I. forum explaining what I’m referring to. And if I’m right about listening to fans, then it’s easily explained by your “gotten too big” theory.
Well, in that sense of not looking forward to the sequel, I still agree. There is actually one potential GOOD storyline (it may have already been discussed in this thread, though) to continue the first, but, apparently, Pixar is choosing (at least, as far as we know) to, as pitbulllady would say it in this topic, “jump the shark” with repetition and, in some cases, some rather gruesome ends (i.e. how is a monster getting an inhumane death via a trash compactor in Ride and Go Seek supposed to be kid-friendly, let alone funny?).
I always read that as playing more to the Japanese audience than anything else. I guarantee that if Ride and Go Seek ever comes to America it will have a different ending, but for Japan, it’s great. Have you ever watched anime or read manga? That stuff is beyond messed up, but the Japanese eat it up. So that decision I’ve always felt was made to cater to the different audience.
I’m really sorry to ask this SgtYayap but [Citation Needed]. Which Monsters Inc comic, exactly, did they have Sid travel into the Monster world? And when did the artists claim anywhere that the comics were intended to be canon? I can’t find any information about that.
While I’m looking forward to the next three Pixar film’s, I’m a little dissapointed at the same time. The last three Pixar films are my favorites from them, with Wall E being my favorite of the three and my favorite movie of all time. So I’m a little dissapointed in the fact that the next three films are all sequels. I want something fresh and new. I was looking forward to Newt more than anything else they had coming up. But after reading the Ed Catmull interview posted recently, I’m assuming this is one of the reasons why they went this route.
“If I look at the range, you’ve got one [constraint] that is art school, I’m doing this for arts sake, Ratatouille and WALL-E clearly fall more on that side, the other is the purely commercial side, where you’ve got a lot of films that are made purely for following a trend, if you go entirely for the art side then eventually you fail economically. if you go purely commercially then I think you fail from a soul point of view… we’ve got these elements pulling on both sides, the art side and the commercial side… and the the trick is not to let one side win.”
I sometimes have to remind myself that Pixar has investors and other people to answer to and people to employ. Yea, they do some pretty out there things and take risk, but they are also a company that has to make money. Oh well, I’m sure the sequels are in good hands. And I will be in the theatre opening day to see their next four films.
theoutsider1983- That explains a lot, but at the same time I refuse to believe that Ratatouille and WALL-E were unsuccessful financially.
I, personally, think that Pixar have made two big mistakes here. Firstly, Brave? It’s just not a great title for a film, almost as bad as Cars. Pixar were happy to release a film called Ratatouille, a word a surprising number of people (especially children) are unable to pronounce, so what was wrong with the title The Bear and the Bow I’ll never know. The latter title may have been lengthy, but it’s much more evocative of ye olde worlde tales of adventure than Brave, which could be about pretty much anything.
Secondly, Monsters, Inc. 2. Putting aside one obvious reason why I might not be so happy, the fact is that Pixar have got one of their key films, a film perfect in its succinctness and the feeling that it’s all been wrapped up nicely, and they’re making a sequel to it. A real shame, I think, as much as I’d love to visit the Monster World again. A real, real shame.
it hurts to know that these kind of comics exist.
, but on Pete Docter getting back into the director’s chair.