Toy Story 3: Woody packs a GUN!!

Post by **Segaholic2** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:23 pm

Why would they <I>want</I> to stay with Disney?

Post by **Delphine** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:41 pm

Money is the only answer I can come up with, and if so, I'm glad they're not staying with Pixar.

Post by **Esrever** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:05 am

There is this dellusion that Pixar somehow dislikes or resents being a part of Disney. It's not true. Steve Jobs just doesn't like Will Eisner. Most of the Pixar people, including Lassetter, are absolute Disney nuts. Many Pixar employees were sent over to the new company FROM Disney when production on the original Toy Story began. They love Disney's herritage and being a part of the Disney legacy, having their characters in Disneyland and so on.

And of course, without Disney there would BE no Pixar like there is today. They poured tons of money, talent and promotion into that studio. Everything about how they make movies, from concept to story sweatboxing to animating to final product, was adopted directly from the procedures Disney uses for their own films. They helped secure top talent, particularly in the voice-acting department. And particularly in Pixar's earlier films, Disney had a huge hand creatively in helping shape and perfect Pixar's films, which were being made by a studio that had never made a film longer than five minutes. And since then, they've given Pixar an incredibly free hand with regards to the kind of movies they can make... just look at the Incredibles. Inside Pixar, there is not exactly a lot of reason to dislike Disney.

The animosity between Disney and Pixar is almost entirely corporate. It's about money, and about Jobs and Eisner's personal hatred of one another. The new deal that Pixar proposed to Disney is ludicrous... no studio would ever accept it. It was Jobs being pissy, and many figure that if and when Eisner is history, Pixar and Disney will reach a new agreement pretty easily.

Post by **Green Gibbon!** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:29 am

I would personally love to see Pixar separated from Disney and have it stay that way, except that I wonder how they'll fare without the cash flow and promotion.

Post by **Esrever** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:06 am

Well, since Pixar is just an animation studio, they'd still need SOME other company to promote, distribute and fund their films, be it Disney or whoever else. So I'm pretty sure that if Pixar did leave Disney, it would be because they were going to sign up with another company that could fulfil those duties comprably. But they haven't found any takers yet, at least, not at the agreement they were offering...

Dash · Post by **Dash** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:01 pm

Did they make anything worth watching after the Lion King, anyway?

Not really. Lilo and Stitch, maybe. Everything else, no.

Did ANYONE see Treasure Planet? I'd say it was Disney's best in-house film in a long time. Box Office flop it may have been, but that doesn't make it any less of a classic.

Post by WB » Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:11 pm

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/lo ... -headlines

Disney prepares 'Toy Story' sequel

But proceeding with the project could doom any future talks with Pixar.

By Claudia Eller and Richard Verrier
Los Angeles Times and Orlando Sentinel
Posted March 16 2005

As Robert Iger, the newly appointed chief executive of the Walt Disney Co., seeks to repair the company's foundering relationship with Pixar Animation Studios, he could face one key obstacle: Pixaren't.

That's what animators have dubbed a nondescript white warehouse in Glendale, Calif., that Disney has recently transformed into a factory to produce sequels to Pixar movies, including Toy Story, Finding Nemo and Monsters Inc.

Under the companies' existing partnership, which expires with the release of Cars in 2006, Disney has a right to make sequels to all the Pixar movies. Still, Disney's decision to exercise that right is controversial.

As the entertainment giant ramps up its new Pixar sequel division, which is already gearing up for Toy Story 3, some think it could hinder Iger's efforts to make peace with Pixar chief Steve Jobs.

"It does muddy the waters for creating some sort of deal," said Tom Sito, president emeritus of Hollywood's local animation guild and a former Disney animator. "Pixar has very jealously guarded the integrity of their creative properties and are loath to trust them to others who are more economy-minded. It's like somebody else taking your children to school."

Jobs abruptly ended talks to renew Pixar's distribution deal with Disney over a year ago, when the two sides couldn't agree on financial terms. He has repeatedly said that despite the huge success of Toy Story 2, his company shuns sequels in favor of making original stories.

Pixar -- the market leader in animation -- just had its sixth consecutive hit with The Incredibles.

But unless Pixar reteams with Disney and opts to make the sequels itself, Disney can move forward alone -- though it must pay Pixar royalties on any project it makes.

Officials from both Disney and Pixar would not comment. But according to several sources close to Jobs and Pixar's creative guru John Lasseter, the two men are deeply unhappy about Disney's new venture, which will eventually employ up to 250 people for Toy Story 3 alone.

In animation circles, the Pixar sequel unit is being seen by some as an affront to the creative process.

Chris Wedge, the director of 20th Century Fox's new hit movie Robots, who has known Lasseter for more than 20 years, called Disney's move to piggyback on Pixar's creativity "misguided and depressing."

Currently, about 40 people are at work on the unit's first film: Toy Story 3. Disney has a script it likes and is in talks with a director and a producer: Bradley Raymond, who directed Disney's direct-to-video Lion King 11/2, and Roy Conli, who produced Treasure Planet and The Hunch Back of Notre Dame.

One thing Disney doesn't have -- at least not yet -- is a commitment from Tom Hanks and Tim Allen to reprise their voice-over roles as Woody and Buzz Lightyear. Disney has yet to approach the pair.

Production of Toy Story 3, which follows the adventures of Buzz after he is recalled to the Taiwan factory where he was built, is expected to begin next year for release in 2008.

Although other Hollywood studios have courted Pixar as a potential distribution partner, Jobs has not entered into serious negotiations with any of them. He has indicated that he could be enticed to reopen talks with Disney once Michael Eisner, the current chief executive with whom he has clashed publicly, steps down. This week, Disney announced that Eisner will turn over the reins to Iger on Sept. 30, and Iger has said he plans to reach out to Jobs.

Some speculate that the formation of the Pixar sequel unit was designed in part to give Disney more leverage.

But sources close to the studio say Disney executives are simply planning for a post-Pixar future. Making sequels to such enormously popular movies just makes good business sense.

Richard Verrier can be reached at 1-800-528-4637, Ext. 77936, or richard.verrier @latimes.com. Claudia Eller is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, a Tribune Publishing newspaper.

Actually - Bradley Raymond didn't direct Hunchback of Notre Dame - that was Gary Trousdale. Bradley Raymond directed the NOTORIOUSLY AWFUL DTV sequel: Hunchback of Notre Dame TWO. To his credit however, I've heard from lots of people that Lion King 1 1/2 was the only decent DTV to come out within the last year, which tells me hit or miss.

So Buzz Lightyear gets recalled to the Taiwanese factory that made him. How much you wanna bet it'll involve one of the characters from the old Buzz Lightyear cartoon as a toy because already it kind of feels like swapping the plot for #2 to #3. I'd bet anything on at least seeing the return of Evil Emporer Zurg or the introduction of Mira Nova (which is more likely considering TS2 introduced Woody to Jessie and Disney is all about milking that GURL POWER). :P

Call me a pessimist but I can already see this going nowhere. :P

Post by **Esrever** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:42 pm

The sad thing is that Lassetter and company already had their own ideas about what Toy Story III could have been. If Pixar's 5-picture deal with Disney included sequels, they defintiely would have made it. But Jobs is definitely not going to let them make another movie for Disney that "doesn't count."

If anyone is curious about what Pixar might have done...

So - without really spoiling the film - what can I tell you about "Toy Story III"? Well, I can tell you is that the film deals with a subject that Pixar has reportedly gotten a lot of mail about: What happens when Andy grows up.

It seems that hundreds of kids out there have written to Pixar over the years, wondering what's going to happen to Woody, Buzz et al when Andy finally outgrows his toys. Is it going to be a rerun of what happened to Jessie, where she was ignored, forgotten, then eventually given away to charity?

To do that ... would just break the hearts of thousands of kids around the globe. To think that Slinky Dog, Rex and Mr. Potato Head came to such a sad end.

Which is why the folks at Pixar - particularly Lasseter - reportedly wants to end the "Toy Story" story with all the characters in a safe place. So - as "Toy Story III" faded out - it was crucial that Woody, Buzz and the gang would be somewhere where they'd always be cared for. Where they'll always be loved.

So how to do you do this? Well - to get to the end - sometimes you have to go all the way back to the beginning. In this case, that meant digging out of the original treatment for "Toy Story" (written in the Spring of 1991).

How many of you out there have the ultimate "Toy Box" on DVD? Okay. Go get it. Now slap in the supplemental disc & find your way to the original treatment that's archived on this disc. Isn't it amazing how many pieces of "Toy Story II" (Not to mention, of course, the original "Toy Story") can be found in this document? The yard sale that the characters accidentally end up in? The greedy toy collector? The dangerous crossing of the highway? And - of course - the toy penguin with the broken squeaker.

Yes, the original treatment for "Toy Story" is fun to read. But what we're here to talk about is the proposed ending of "Toy Story III." Well - if you read the original treatment for "Toy Story" - you'll get a large-sized hint as to where Lasseter and Co. want to go with the third and (supposedly) final chapter of this much beloved film series.

So what happens at the end of the original treatment of "Toy Story"? Tinny (a tin toy based - appropriately enough - on the title character in Pixar's 1989 Academy Award winning short, "Tin Toy") and his friend, Dummy (A ventriloquist dummy modeled after Charlie McCarthy that occasionally wears a cowboy hat), have survived encounters with obnoxious dogs, obsessive toy collectors, being separated from the kids that love them, even tumbling out a garbage truck into speeding traffic ... And they really deserve a break. After their long ordeal, these characters deserve to find a loving home where there will always be kids to play with them. (For a toy is never truly happy unless it is being loved by a child).

And - miracles of miracles - they actually find this wonderful place. Right next door to where the obnoxious dog lives. It's a pre-school with a kindergarten. Tinny and Dummy (along with their new friends, Slinky Worm and Wheezy) eventually their way into the kindergarten class room. Here, the other toys tell them that their troubles are finally over.

Why for? Because in this room, there will always be children who are willing to play with Tinny & Dummy. And each year, a brand new crop of kids arrives to shower the playthings with affection and attention. And the best part of the deal is ... The children go home every day once school lets out. And the toys get the entire summers off. To rest. To vacation. Play with their fellow playthings. Whatever.

This is where Lasseter & Co. supposedly want to leave Woody, Buzz and the crew to be at the end of "Toy Story III." In a place where there'll always be kids to play with them. Where the audience knows that they'll be loved and cared for years yet to come.

That's not too shabby a way to wrap up the "Toy Story" saga, now is it? Of course, given that it's looking more & more unlikely that we'll never see this movie (Because - according to Michael Eisner's way of looking at things - a film that makes $485 million still DOESN'T COUNT !!!), I guess that we'll just have to make do with the ending of "Toy Story II."

This is taken from an article that is now two years old:
http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb/articles ... php?ID=374

Locit · Post by **Locit** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:50 pm

*Sniff*

Post by **Green Gibbon!** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:05 pm

Just out of curiosity since we're talking about it, what, exactly, is the connection between Pixar and Ghibli? Other than the fact that they're the only two animation studios left in the world consistently producing quality films and that Lassetter is a fan of Ghibli?

Locit · Post by **Locit** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:07 am

That's about it I think. Also, Howl's Moving Castle is shaping up to own my soul. They recently announced the English cast. Lookee:

Howl: Christian Bale
Old Sophie: Jean Simmons
Young Sophie: Undecided
Witch of the Waste: Lauren Bacall
Calcifer: Billy Crystal
Madam Suliman: Blythe Danner

Weither you like subbing or dubbing you will all go see this movie. ALL of you.

Post by **Green Gibbon!** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:15 am

Except if you watch it dubbed, you will no longer be my friend.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:24 am

That's not too shabby a way to wrap up the "Toy Story" saga, now is it?

It seems like the coolest and most fitting ending you could give the series.

That's about it I think. Also, Howl's Moving Castle is shaping up to own my soul. They recently announced the English cast. Lookee:

The book made sense. When I heard that the adaptation was going to be loose, I thought they were just going to take the basic situations and characters from the book and do their own thing with it. Instead, they had Howl transform into a crow in favor of dropping the parts of the story that made the whole thing fit together.

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:14 am

Green Gibbon! wrote:Except if you watch it dubbed, you will no longer be my friend.

Because hearing things in your own language is something only HEATHENS enjoy.

Tsuyoshi-kun · Post by **Tsuyoshi-kun** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:08 am

Funny enough, I used to watch Ghibli films in English. Now I can't stand to listen to them in anything other than Japanese. Go figure.

plasticwingsband · Post by **plasticwingsband** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:18 am

JAPANOPHILE ALERT

Tsuyoshi-kun · Post by **Tsuyoshi-kun** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:28 am

Nah, I just like to watch stuff from Japan...in Japanese. Makes sense, right? You wouldn't to watch The Simpsons or Family Guy in French instead of its original English, would ya? I wouldn't. Why? Because something's always lost in a dub of anything, no matter how accurate it may be.

Man, I sound a hell of a lot like Green Gibbon! all of a sudden..

(Of course, in the case of Howl's Moving Castle, only the dub will be in theatres, so I have no choice but to see it in English. I'm not waiting until 2006 for it to be on DVD).

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:43 am

Well unless you speak Japanese then something is lost in a sub as well.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:12 am

It's a bloody English story, anyways. It's not like there are any deep cultural references to Japan that you wouldn't understand.

Post by **G.Silver** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:22 am

Well unless you speak Japanese then something is lost in a sub as well.

Even for people who don't speak a foreign language, subtitling has the strange effect of making people psychicly think they actually DO understand the language, and in their minds, when they remember the movie, although they remember the Japanese voice acting, the words are in English. This happened to me before I learned Japanese, and it still happens to a lot of my friends. Admittedly, it's hard to judge if the Japanese acting was actually good or bad, but it's not like you don't get <i>anything</i> out of it.

The only people who "lose" anything in watching a subtitled movie are the ones who can't read fast enough.

Tsuyoshi-kun · Post by **Tsuyoshi-kun** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:13 pm

G.Silver wrote:The only people who "lose" anything in watching a subtitled movie are the ones who can't read fast enough.

Yeah. It took me three years before I was able to keep up with subtitles.

Post by **Green Gibbon!** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

It's a bloody English story, anyways.

If I read the book, I'll be sure to get it in English. The movie, however, is Japanese.

I wouldn't dream of watching a foreign film in any language other than the one it was written in. Of course the only ideal solution would be to learn the language, but it's not usually feasible (certainly not with all the foreign films I watch), and subtitles offer a better solution than outright dumping the complete dialogue track. The only excuses for being put off by subtitles are stupidity and/or laziness, both very typical traits of average joe movie-goer.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:09 pm

I bet it took Gibbon - like a GAZILLION!

ROTFLMAO! XD

Locit · Post by **Locit** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:15 pm

But what about going to see it to support Ghibli in the US? Unless they actually have some screens showing a subtitled edition, there's not going to be any other convenient way to see the film.