From the news about Newt I’ve heard, I do think there will be voice-acting of course in it. [spoil] One of the supposed rumored-characters is a Salamander who gives ‘advice’ to Newt on how to win Brooke’s heart…and it would just be too much of a hassal to take a half an hour explaining one of those methods[/spoil]
From what I think, Wall-E was mainly about Wall-E and Eve being from two different paths (he’s trashbot, she’s an official scout, he follows his heart, she follows his directive.
I think Newt is sorta like one of those romance movies that has a guy wanting “that one thing” from a woman, but eventually knows that’s NOT the way it’s gonna work. And then you have this guy’s “friends” offering their ideas (40 Year Old Virgin anybody ^_-), which just don’t work for him. I have an inkling Newt is a nice guy, he just is unsure how to approach the whole “love” thing.
I think it’s better to pass judgment on the movie only after it’s been released (and you sort of implied this in your post, 1986, so I’m simply reiterating what you already said). I use this example all the time whenever the subject of film originality comes up, but consider Hotel Rwanda and Schindler’s List. If director Terry George had announced, prior to the film’s release, that Hotel Rwanda would be about a man saving a group of people from genocide, one would be tempted to say, “That’s exactly like Schindler’s List!” However, after watching the film, it would be pretty easy to realize that despite the similarities, the two films are ultimately different - Hotel Rwanda focuses more on how one’s family can lead a person to do good things, while Schindler’s List focuses more on the capacity of the human heart and the ability to change when faced with the most horrendous of evils. (Note that both themes appear in both movies, but the degree of emphasis is different in each film). There are other differences, most of which are perhaps inexpressible in words and can really only be “felt”, “thought about”, etc. after watching both films.
When it comes to film originality, my theory is that a good film always has something “special” that sets it apart from other films - in other words, something that makes it unique (this “special” thing might be something you can distinguish quickly, or could be something that is hard to put into words [but you just know it’s there]). Note, also, that goodness is very much dependent on the judgment put forth by the person watching the film (there’s no such thing as an “objectively good film”). The beauty of it all is that this uniqueness will hold true for eternity, so the order in which you watch certain good films that seem to be alike in many respects is irrelevant.
I suppose for Pixar fans like ourselves, a more appropriate example would be A Bug’s Life and Seven Samurai, or Cars and Doc Hollywood. I’ve obviously already seen A Bug’s Life and Cars, so I can say with certainty that, since those films are, in my opinion, “good”, there is something unique in each of those films (some of which I can express in words, some of which I cannot). Unfortunately, I have seen neither Seven Samurai (I know it’s embarrassing, considering that I’m a film buff) nor Doc Hollywood, so I can’t really say anything about those films (which is why I decided to stick with the Hotel Rwanda/Schindler’s List comparison).
I agree. It’s a little soon to pass judgement just because there are a few similarities. Not to mention the future of Newt seems very unclear right now.
Wall.e was good, but Newt sounded like a good idea.
I know, it’s sad that they canceled it, to my feeling, it was all Disneys idea.
But no Pixar idea gets shelved.
I thought Newt could be the voice-equivalent to Wall-E in my liking, it could really get to me how two people who feel so much hatred for each other must bond somehow for the future of their race?
Ooh, maybe a dramatic ending too? (female or male dies???)
I thought Newt had alot of potential. If you seen the concept art, it could of been up there along with Ratatouille and Up which were the more colorful films from Pixar.
I admit, given WALL-E as a recent masterpiece, another silent movie would have been too much, and it would inevitably be compared to Andrew Stanton’s work for the rest of its lives. But anywhooo, I’m still kinda not over the fact that we’ll not get to see Newt in big screen for, allegedly, ever. Why oh why did Blue Sky have to come out with a crappy Rio and spoil all the fun for us Pixar fans???
If I am God (which I’m not) and have my way, the Pixar slate would have looked like this:
June 2011: newt
June 2012: Brave
November 2012: Cars 2 (to appease Lasseter’s fanboyism to the Cars world)
June 2013: Monsters University
November 2013: Dinosaurs movie
May 2014: Mind-boggling movie
May 2015: Lee Unkrich movie
And then a Teddy Newton/Angus MacLane movie, an Andrew Stanton movie, an Incredibles sequel by Brad Bird all to follow suits. Life would be complete!!
It’s all wishful thinking, of course! But when tidbits like this come out, it makes me think that a Newton/MacLane full-length feature in the horizon might not be too far-fetched.
