I’d always thought that there was quite some potential for having a relation of our dear friend Mr. Sansweet pull a Buddy and “make” himself into a supervillain after being outraged by the supers’ return. I actually had it semi-planned out, he was handicapped and everything, which is why Oliver attempted suicide, because he couldn’t support him. Not enough to make a movie of it, just little bits of backstory. And I’m not in charge anyways.
Anyways… not really sure what my point was there. I guess that even though there’s nobody that we saw grow up like Buddy, there are plenty of ways to herald back to Movie 1 in the introduction of a new villain. But even if they don’t, it’ll be pulled off beautifully. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it.
I wonder if Pixar purposely ends a majority of their films in such a way as so that a sequel to those films would seem almost ludicrous and/or unnecessary? Then again, they also tend to leave one or two films “up for rent” and innocently exposed to the world of sequels (ie., Monsters, Inc.). More often than not, however, Pixar’s productions hold a closed terminus.
Haha! You know, I really like this potential backstory that you conjured up. If there was a way to squeeze it into the story-line, it would make a rather interesting and insightful addition to The Incredibles’ sequel, if one is ever made.
I always did wonder why Mr. Sansweet flung himself off the building. Not that it’s absolutely necessary for us to know, but still…
I think there’s no doubt that it’s purposeful. Pixar sets out with a story in mind, not with a franchise in mind, and that’s the way they proceed the whole way through. When you’re structuring a story, a good ending that closes everything up is only natural, rather than an almost anti-climactic ending that leaves you wanting more not because you loved the story but because the ending was unsatisfactory. Just look at Shrek 2. The big finale was, what? Fairy Godmother exploding into bubbles. Hardly what I would call wrapping things up; ya think they were looking ahead to Shrek 3 at that stage? Oh yeah.
You can really tell when a film is supposed to be a story and when it’s supposed to be a part of a franchise, in my mind. Especially with animated films (I’m looking at you, Dreamworks), it seems, a franchise movie has more of an almost episodic feel to it, like a TV show installation, only it’s 2 hours instead of 30 minutes. Shrek was pretty good, I think, but when you compare Shrek 2 and Pixar’s only sequel, Toy Story 2, the craftsmanship with turning Shrek into a franchise really tapers off, while with Toy Story 2 they still wrap it up just as nicely as they did with the first one. Compare Woody’s “I’ll have Buzz Lightyear to keep me company, to infinity and beyond.” (please correct me if I’m slightly off, I’m doing this from memory) to Puss’s “Let’s have a fiesta!” and it’s painfully obvious which filmmakers were looking ahead to #3.
DElf - Exactly. If you’re gonna produce/direct a film then you should actually put some muscle into it and apply some elbow grease for the job. What the point in creating a “masterpiece” if it’s gonna eventually end up in the garbage disposal with the rest of the…junk that didn’t make the cut? I mean, sheesh… sigh
They were looking ahead to Shrek 4 by that period I’ll bet. There’s pitiful, there’s depressingly pitiful, and then there’s ludicrously pitiful. I’m not sure what I’d go with on this one, but the fact that they had (and have) all of these films planned out before even completing their first sequel is sad and disappointing in itself. It’s sickening, that’s what it is.
I’m gonna quote Linguini here and state one of the most memorable lines in Ratatouille:
[spoil]“If you’re gonna name a food you should give it a name that sounds…delicious.”[/spoil]
Well, perhaps it’s not the most memorable line of dialogue, but you get the point. It makes a statement, and a very decent one at that. Just as food is meant to be appetizing, so should films and the story-line imbedded within their animated cloaks, no matter what the medium. And as ludicrous as it may seem, I’m waiting for DreamWorks to see the light…
“I’ll have ol’ Buzz Lightyear to keep me company, to infinity and beyond.” – Woody
You were off by one word. Eheh. Curse my knack for fixing every quote in sight…
When you make good movies, those are the two ways that you end it. Examples of “unnesseccessary” endings would be Finiding Nemo, and A Bug’s Life, ([spoil]maybe even Ratatouille).[/spoil] THose endings ended with a “happily ever after” tone to it. The BUgs waving good bye, Marlin’s happy as Nemo rides away in the distance to school, and[spoil] Remy opening his new succesfull restruant[/spoil] are all ways of ending the movie with the audience thinking “awww, that is a wonderful story, I’m so happy things turned out the way it did.”
NOw the other way to end a film is to leave your audience guessing or wanting for more. This can be best examplified by The Incredibles or Monster’s Inc. These, I believe, should be followed up with something, if there is extremely high demand of it. Take The Incredibles, the mood, the intensity as the movie was about to finish was really high. My guess is people wanted more. Now I ain’t saying that is should be rished, but if people really want it, then I think directors should take time to consider making a successful, yet high quality squel.
I think, in a way, sometimes the not entirely cut-and-dry endings are sort of better, not because of the sequel potential, but because it adds an extra sense of realism. For example, with The Incredibles, it’s easy to believe that after the film they had many more adventures, as it is in a real person’s life- throughout the course of a life, there is not one main story arc, but many, and with The Incredibles, you get the feeling that you have been able to observe probably one of the most significant story arcs, but that there has been many more before, and there will be many more after. Dreamworks’ films either make it feel as though there really couldn’t have been anything before, and there probably won’t be anything after, or they make it so that the story arc doesn’t seem completed in the film itself. Pixar manages to strike the right balance.
Star Swordsman
Wonder how his powers would develop. Who knows what other ones he has.
Mitch
May so, but whatever did happen to her. From the description, being the mother of 200 kids heh…would wonder what did happen.
Good point from SS there. Given Remy’s age, DOES he even KNOW his mother?
JF/RC
Mitch isn’t the only one with inside info heh heh.
Mitch
Actually I think a Shrek 4 is planned out. Not to mention a side-movie involving Puss-in-Boots.
Lizardgirl
I’m gonna take a quote from Randall and say “Happy endings are just stories that haven’t finished yet.”
[quote=“Nexas”]
Star Swordsman
Wonder how his powers would develop. Who knows what other ones he has.
[quote]
Well, I would suspect that he would have better control of his transforming powers for one guess. Maybe bigger beams from his eyes, but I don’t know. Just guessing.
bawpcwpn - Hmm. Interesting. Well, thank you for the information. I sure hope that a Cars 2 will not be produced for the sake of the…, well, for various reasons. Heh.
Edit: Oh gosh, I think that I might have accidentally deleted your post, bawpcwpn. I could have sworn I didn’t, but if I did, I’m terribly sorry. Here is your post if you’d like to paste it on again:
I guess that even though there’s nobody that we saw grow up like Buddy, there are plenty of ways to herald back to Movie 1 in the introduction of a new villain. But even if they don’t, it’ll be pulled off beautifully. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it. 