Pixar's got the Sequel Bug ...
By Eric Shapiro - posted on NY Press Blogs 6/24/2010
Pixar established its reputation by having faith in its audience and by refusing to shy away from quirky concepts and serious themes. Who else could be responsible for a post-apocalyptic robot love story, or a modern day fairy tale about a French rat who wants to be a chef? Pixar consistently releases smart, innovative movies that appeal to all ages, which is more than can be said for, well, just about any other movie studio.
But it looks like this may be about to change, no thanks to the evil empire of Disney. Lacking talent and ideas, the once-respected company has acquired Pixar and infected it with the sequel bug. Bad news. OK, so Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 were both great movies (although New York Press’ own Armond White would beg to differ) that proved Pixar could in fact produce sequels consistent with the spirit and quality of their predecessors. Still, if forced to choose, I’ll take something new over more of the same any day.
Until recently, Pixar seemed to concur with this philosophy. However, back in May, the studio cancelled Newt, a promising film already in production that would have told the story of two blue-footed newts forced to mate in captivity to preserve their species. Hot on the heels of this disappointing news came the announcement of Monsters, Inc. 2. Along with Cars 2, that makes two sequels and one brand new property, which just so happens to feature a princess protagonist (I doubt this has anything to do with Disney).
Cars and Monsters, Inc are rare instances of mediocrity in Pixar’s otherwise flawless portfolio. Critics generally agree that both films lack the depth, subtlety and creativity that the studio is known for. Newt was shaping up to be a quirky, thought-provoking yarn in the tradition of Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Wall-E and Up.
Maybe Pixar pulled the plug on Newt because it didn’t meet its standards of quality. However, it seems far more likely that with two high-budget sequels in production, the studio simply wasn’t willing to devote resources to a film with an ostensibly unmarketable premise (reproduction and extinction in a “kids movie?”). Perhaps without the corporate behemoth of Disney breathing down its neck, Pixar would have made a better decision.
Given the production costs of high-budget animated films, it makes sense, at least from an economic standpoint, that Pixar would fall back on their cash cows rather than take risks on new properties. Still, it’s a shame to watch a studio known for breaking new ground playing it safe. We can only hope the cancellation of Newt is a fluke and not a harbinger of things to come.
Pixar established its reputation by having faith in its audience and by refusing to shy away from quirky concepts and serious themes. Who else could be responsible for a post-apocalyptic robot love story, or a modern day fairy tale about a French rat who wants to be a chef? Pixar consistently releases smart, innovative movies that appeal to all ages, which is more than can be said for, well, just about any other movie studio.
But it looks like this may be about to change, no thanks to the evil empire of Disney. Lacking talent and ideas, the once-respected company has acquired Pixar and infected it with the sequel bug. Bad news. OK, so Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 were both great movies (although New York Press’ own Armond White would beg to differ) that proved Pixar could in fact produce sequels consistent with the spirit and quality of their predecessors. Still, if forced to choose, I’ll take something new over more of the same any day.
Until recently, Pixar seemed to concur with this philosophy. However, back in May, the studio cancelled Newt, a promising film already in production that would have told the story of two blue-footed newts forced to mate in captivity to preserve their species. Hot on the heels of this disappointing news came the announcement of Monsters, Inc. 2. Along with Cars 2, that makes two sequels and one brand new property, which just so happens to feature a princess protagonist (I doubt this has anything to do with Disney).
Cars and Monsters, Inc are rare instances of mediocrity in Pixar’s otherwise flawless portfolio. Critics generally agree that both films lack the depth, subtlety and creativity that the studio is known for. Newt was shaping up to be a quirky, thought-provoking yarn in the tradition of Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Wall-E and Up.
Maybe Pixar pulled the plug on Newt because it didn’t meet its standards of quality. However, it seems far more likely that with two high-budget sequels in production, the studio simply wasn’t willing to devote resources to a film with an ostensibly unmarketable premise (reproduction and extinction in a “kids movie?”). Perhaps without the corporate behemoth of Disney breathing down its neck, Pixar would have made a better decision.
Given the production costs of high-budget animated films, it makes sense, at least from an economic standpoint, that Pixar would fall back on their cash cows rather than take risks on new properties. Still, it’s a shame to watch a studio known for breaking new ground playing it safe. We can only hope the cancellation of Newt is a fluke and not a harbinger of things to come.