Because of moolah.
... People who have seen pre-release surveys say that "Toy Story 3" is certain to have the biggest opening for a movie from Pixar Animation Studios, beating 2004's "The Incredibles," which started with $70.4 million in the U.S. and Canada.
Thanks to strong interest among all audience segments, as well as 3-D premium ticket prices, the movie could provide Pixar's first $100-million-plus opening if pre-release tracking is on target ...
So $100 mill is the prediction. In a few days we'll know if the forecast is on the money.
But anybody who wonders why big companies make second, third and fourth installments of movies filled with well-loved (and lucrative) characters, isn't living in the 21st century.
They're living at a small animation studio on Hyperion Avenue, circa 1938, listening to a filmmaker who didn't like sequels.
Posts
28 comments:
Because of moolah.
BECAUSE...OF FREAKIN'...LEGAL...REQUIREMENTS!!
(Okay, now you're just deliberately doing this to annoy the rest of us, right, Steve?) ;)
If Pixar didn't make a movie with TS3's name, then ownership could have still potentially been up in the air over that hellspawned "Buzz recalled" Circle 7 script, and any intellectual claim to the material could slip through a legal loophole.
But Pixar had already prepared their own TS3 script to house standards, expecting Eisner to put up a fight, and thankfully never got to use it for the self-defense purposes for which it was intended.
And now that rights to the characters have reverted to the original owners, if Pixar produced their own script under their own production and ownership, then there is no argument over who owns the rights to a story with that title, and no one ever has to worry about nasty little fakers ever again.
I'm not in Legal, but that's a pretty general idea of how such things get resolved--Again, it's not like they were rushing it into with dollar signs flashing in their eyes, Daffy Duck-style.
Repeat above for their attempt to legally claim-junmp Circle 7's threatened "Monsters Inc. 2", although that may possibly be using Hilgenberg & Muir for a source. The higher-ups in Story are very likely aware they'd be nuts if they didn't. (Although, again, that's not my department, so I was never privy to what was in the H&M script, and I can't speak for any similarities in what they ARE working on for the project.)
And this is EXACTLY what we were talking about in the last thread:
Can't help it, can ya?..."Greedy Pixar" handwringing, born of our own cynical imaginations, is just toooo sexy a topic to stay away from, ain't it?--It's a boogeyman we just WANT to believe in when times are hard, isn't it?
Why let logic, rationality, and messy in-studio boardroom legal wrangling ruin a good chance to feel smug about ourselves?
So $100 mill is the prediction. In a few days we'll know if the forecast is on the money.
(And if, for whatever reason--whatever reason, regardless of the quality--it "only" brings in $90M or $95 or even $85, don't pull another stupid "Cars" stunt on us again and claim The End Has Finally Come, 'kay?
Yes, we know somebody out there's just itching to, and this is exactly how it happened the last time--Nobody brought up "$100 million" until somebody in Publicity made it up to look important, and real-life audiences are not responsible for maintaining another executive's imagination.
Personally, I don't expect any danger to happen, but boy, is this sounding familiar...)
Surely it's not a bad thing when a studio makes record profit off a film? movie does well, employees get paid extra, benefits improve, and the extra cash gets banked.
Funny thing with Pixar though. They're just concerned with making high quality family films. The critical and popular praise is a reflection of that. And the moola? That's just the cherry on top.
Pixar may do sequels, but at least they do it well and intelligently. Look at all the Cars Toons shorts... high quality fare to keep the franchise fresh and in front of the audience until Cars 2.
ROFLMAO...these guys are so precious.
Is there a 12 step program for Pixies yet?
I don't understand, why does Pixar doing a sequel make them greedy? Is there something ignoble about a business wanting to make money and producing a (presumably) quality product to earn that money?
Maybe they thought, "you know, we'd make a ton of money with Toy Story 3... and we have a pretty good idea for a story. Let's do it!"
I really don't get the strange tale that Anonymous 10:54 is trying to tell. Nor do I agree with anonymous 3:51 that the money is "the cherry on top." Businesses exist for the sole profit of making money. I'm confused, though, as to why people are ashamed to admit that's what Disney/Pixar is doing.
Nothing wrong with Sequels--but Pixar does it right...not the republican/corporate communist way. Quality first---everything else will follow. Respect the customer.
Is there a 12 step program for Pixies yet?
You sound jealous.
Toy Story 3 at 100% at RT.
Which is the basic point:
Look, nobody wants to be compared to Jim Hill...That's hitting low. :) Our webmaster's just trying to cut-and-paste any daily news bulletin that comes across his desk (in this case "Execs predict $100M opening!"), and give it that tabloid "hook" in the comments to make us all click.
But seriously: WHAT are the "They're just a buncha lazy, greedy bums who've given up!" articles trying to scare us with?
That the sequels will be assembly-line and cheesy?--Yeah, and get 100% on RT. That we'll get nothing but sequels from now on?--That just immature. That Lasseter's secretly plotting to being ToonStudios back from the dead and turn Pixar into a DTV vidquel house?--Now you're just being paranoid. That Iger's pulling strings and turning everything into a Franchise?--Well, we'll give that one; I doubt Cars 2 was on Pixar's own agenda, but let's not turn one instance into a hundred.
We may just have to face the fact that trying to remind a paranoid industry and mainstream about the studio cleaning up after the Battle of The Fake Pixars--and their trying to bury its legacy with honor, good intentions, and legal-department contractual obligation--is like talking to a brick wall: The public would rather believe in boogeymen to make some larger whine about other studios, and no, Virginia, no one is making sequels to be Evil.
But frankly, the populist "greedy bums" angle, in light of what some of us DO know about the messy rights-ownership world of the Suits, after being used only a few hundred times after a few hundred headlines, is starting to wear thin. Real, real, thin.
I personally would prefer to work on a great movie that makes tons of money and gets people talking than a great movie that no one ever sees.
I really don't get the strange tale that Anonymous 10:54 is trying to tell.
Put it this way: Any James Bond 007 fans out there who can tell the story about how there used to be two different writers on "Thunderball", messy lawsuits arose after one version was used for the final film without credit and one wasn't, and the "other" script kept floating around in ownership limbo for years before somebody else made that cheesy version later without the original company?
...Yeah. Kinda like that with the fake Circle 7 scripts.
Nobody wants that Buzz-recalled script to surface again (eek!), and the only legal way for Pixar to bury it--without the expensive mess of paying another writer settlements, especially when they don't deserve it--is to make their own from scratch. (Which, luckily, they had already written as a backup during the Eisner Wars, and, from the reviews, written pretty well, too.)
Does that clear things up?
Well also besides that fact that Pixar is doing these sequels with their level of quality. Since the sequels do bring in a lot of money, thats money that can and most likely be reinvested into their original movies. So its actually a win win situation. Those who like sequels get them and because of that Pixar is able to make more new stuff.
Simple answer:
The business model has changed slightly because they are IN the conglomerate instead of PARTNERED with the conglomerate.
Sequels are fine, really. They're part of moviedom's fabric. The point is, sequel or no, are they good?
(The problem is that a number of folks -- hereinafter known as "Pixies" -- held up Pixar as a shining beacon of quality filmmaking because it didn't make sequels like you-know-who. That meme has now been taken away. But so what? Quality features are the issue; not whether they're Toy Story III, Toy Story IV, etc.)
>>"(Which, luckily, they had already written as a backup during the Eisner Wars, and, from the reviews, written pretty well, too.)
Does that clear things up?"<<
Actually, no. Pixar waited two years before hiring an outside Hollywood screenwriter to pen the draft of TS3. They clearly didn't have a "backup" script written during the "Eisner Wars"
Lasseter speaks here for the first time about the script. - Hollywood Reporter - March 9th 2007 -
"The screenplay is by Michael Arndt, who just won the original screenplay Academy Award for Little Miss Sunshine, according to Lasseter, who said: "We got a great story."<
Now you're gonna ruin the preztel logic that the Pixies have created for what the noble reason is that Pixar has been 'forced' to create sequels.
Why can't you just leave them alone to rewrite history.
remember Pixies, the first step is admitting you have a problem....
... and that is the answer for why there is no 12-step program for Pixies. None of them can admit that they have a problem, or even that they aren't actually a part of Pixar...
"Kinda like that with the fake Circle 7 scripts."
Fake? The writer for Circle 7's TS3 script was paid close to SEVEN figures! Don't kid yourself, for better or worse, Disney was gonna make these sequels. Period. 125 employees for crying out loud.
Actually, no. Pixar waited two years before hiring an outside Hollywood screenwriter to pen the draft of TS3. They clearly didn't have a "backup" script written during the "Eisner Wars"
It wasn't penned, but it was on the boards--The "daycare" subplot was originally going to be one throwaway ending to the Pixar version, but was later expanded upon after the studio had the project back to themselves again.
The idea was that if Pixar DID go free-agent, they'd have to take a sellable franchise with them, and hopefully head Circle's unauthorized version off at the pass...And if Eisner did decide to sign peace treaties and keep them with the company, then Pixar would have a much higher quality storyline ready to bring to the table, in keeping with their own standards.
I don't expect Pixar publicists to go shooting off their mouths in public about the bad ol' days, and it doesn't make good copy to brag to the world about how troubled a project was at the studio--That Pixar would gladly tell us the project "started" when they wrote it and nobody else ever worked on it, may also be a bit of Rewritten History, but hey, at least that's their studio job. ;)
"Kinda like that with the fake Circle 7 scripts."
Fake? The writer for Circle 7's TS3 script was paid close to SEVEN figures! Disney was gonna make these sequels. Period.
(Okay, "artificial", then.) :)
"The "daycare" subplot was originally going to be one throwaway ending to the Pixar version, but was later expanded upon after the studio had the project back to themselves again."
Must've been a popular setting, because the Circle 7 TS3 script had a nice little chunk of the 2nd act with Woody and gang in a daycare center.
BTW-Just saw TS3 today and it was amazing!
"The idea was that if Pixar DID go free-agent, they'd have to take a sellable franchise with them, and hopefully head Circle's unauthorized version off at the pass..."
Complete nonsense. Pixar couldn't have taken a "sellable franchise" with them. They didn't own it. Disney did. Notwanting to lose control of their characters is what helped keep Pixar from straying away from Disney.
Pixies are the thilliest peoples.
Maybe for the Pixie 12 step program to work they'd have to accept that there's a higher power than JL.
You'd think with all the "success" he's had with Disney that wouldn't be too hard...
Hey what's this Hilgenberg & Muir chatter...hacks, I tell ya, hacks! (Boy are we setting ourselves up, here).
Hi Bob and Rob! If you guys are hacks, we need more like you.
This is your old pal, Floyd checking in from Sydney Australia where I'm doing my Disney thing.
Anyway, I wish I had a tenth of the money TS3 is gonna make.
.1% of what TS3 is going to make will probably be close to a million dollars...
(yes...POINT ONE PERCENT)
Actually, no. Pixar waited two years before hiring an outside Hollywood screenwriter to pen the draft of TS3.
I thought it was pretty well known that the story artists at major studios board out the the film first and then when the film actually gets into production, hires a screen writer to really polish up the dialogue and final screenplay.
I thought it was pretty well known that the story artists at major studios board out the the film first and then when the film actually gets into production, hires a screen writer to really polish up the dialogue and final screenplay.
Yeeeeeaaaaahhhhh. Ssssuuuurrrreeee. That's just how it works.
In your mother's basement.
how are some inside the industry so clueless about the industry?
Hey Floyd! Thanks for the support! We saw TS3 this week and thought it was remarkable...we're guessing Walt would've been proud...REALLY proud! BTW-we just left the 2C Wing and moved up to 3D. Maybe when you get back you can give us some good stories about the wing! Cheers, Bob & Rob!
"I thought it was pretty well known that the story artists at major studios board out the the film first and then when the film actually gets into production, hires a screen writer to really polish up the dialogue and final screenplay."
That's NEVER happened. Ever. Some form of script has always been in play (since the 1930's). And don't believe anyone who says otherwise. How that script is USED is different from place to place--and it's best used as a guide for storyboarding---but it is not the final word.
At Pixar, it seems the director will often write the screenplay, and sometimes shape the story with a screenwriter. Usually, when studios say "just storyboard the script," without understanding what that means, the film falls flat. Screenwriters in animation are a dime a dozen. Good ones, who really can work collaboratively and check their egos at the door are not. They are not the final say--and easy to replace. Great story artists are very hard to find--and are vastly more important in the process of bringing a story to life.
Post a Comment