Comments on: Pixar Troubles: ‘Newt’ Dead and ‘Cars 2’ Director Shuffle?

By: John

John — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:09:41 +0000

It's sad that so many people think that Pixar shouldn't make sequels. If they are of top quality, then why not? It's fun to revisit these charaters. And, with Toy Story 3 on it's way to $400 million domestic, people obviously are happy with it. If a story is good, it doesn't matter if the characters are familiar.
Regarding Newt, if Pixar thinks it should be shelved, then I trust them. However, I wouldn't be shocked if they took another go at it and fixed it enough to make the movie down the road.
I say keep the focus on the storytelling, and bring on Cars 2, Brave, and Monsters Inc 2. And if you sell $$ billions in toys, good for you - it's clearly making kids happy.

By: transparent laptop

transparent laptop — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 05:22:24 +0000

I was the first Pixar film "Cars," the story is very cute, and like all children's films, has a very positive message

By: thyroid treatment

thyroid treatment — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 04:22:45 +0000

my son almost crying watching laprimera part of "cars" can not imagine what will happen if they take in the film the second part, for sure my son will go crazy!

By: trimspa diet

trimspa diet — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 02:21:04 +0000

pixar is spectacular, there is a movie that I have not seen, along with Disney are the best that exists in children's films!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:44:07 +0000

R.I.P. Disney Pixar Newt 2008-2010

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:40:42 +0000

Newt Past Away. R.I.P. Disney Pixar's Newt 2009-2010. We Will Miss Newt And Brooke.

By: homes for sale costa rica

homes for sale costa rica — Sat, 22 May 2010 03:11:32 +0000

very good article. I would like to receive much more information about this topic

By: David

David — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:37:27 +0000

I just wanted to say, after reading all the comments, and as a dad of three kids, there is something wonderful about a film studio that you can trust won't terrify your kids. My oldest loves being scared. My middle one gets nightmares. But both of them love the Pixar films. It's just nice to be able to trust. Pixar is a family-friendly studio. Can we just have one of those for keeps? Does artistic integrity always mean making something scary? Or edgy? Just a thought.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:13:50 +0000

Okay – make a family film. Or make a film for young people. How young do you have to be to NOT be allowed to see an American animated film that isn't 'heartwarming' – an epic American cgi fable on the level of Princess Mononoke' or 'Nausicaa'? I really expected Pixar (Disney-free at one time) to at least have attempted a film at that level of sophistication by now – or even something trippy, like 'The Dark Crystal'. When I was a kid, I LIKED scary scenes, it made the comedy that much better. Young movies today play it safe, period, even Disney/Pixar.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:15:15 +0000

"Is what fantasy land is Ratatouille--a project where the original director fired because of his not-easily-made-into-baby-toys vision--a "riskier, less-commercial" project? That's day job spin control."

Dude, get over yourself. Pixar makes family films, they're not going to produce something akin to "Anti-Christ" anytime soon. And yes, it was a riskier project than something like "Cars" whose commercial and toy appeal can be seen by even Stevie fuckin' Wonder.

And Brad Bird's take on the film certainly isn't the most merchandise-friendly either. The only difference between him and the film's original director is that he knows how to tell a fucking story.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:46:12 +0000

"American Dog" was a mess only if you define mess as "not having a Pixar beat sheet." There's a difference between compromising and turning your film into something as artistically daring as The Hottie & The Nottie.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:28:43 +0000

Is what fantasy land is Ratatouille–a project where the original director fired because of his not-easily-made-into-baby-toys vision–a "riskier, less-commercial" project? That's day job spin control.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:47:18 +0000

Cde, I'm sure you could, but how successfully is another question. An angle or take that worked for one movie may not necessarily work for another.

When the movie is about a sentimental character being, well, sentimental, I think it's hard to strike the balance between getting too sappy and being too cold and distancing. I think the filmmakers did a splendid job finding a balance but apparently you didn't.

Also, being sappy and being simplistic are two different set of nitpicks. Personally, I'm fine with the story being simplistic (and I obviously found it interesting) because sometimes theme can trump plot. The plot was significantly toned down (something about a fountain of youth and such) in order to not detract that the movie is, ultimately, about a character dealing with grief and loss and finding new meaning in life. A wildly diverting storyline or complex plotting would only serve to undermine the simplistic beauty (IMO) of this.

But, of course, everyone's mileage will very.

By: Cde.

Cde. — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:01:34 +0000

"And yes, Up is fantastic and I strongly disagree with your opinion. When the theme of the movie is about regret and the acceptance of death and loss, I'm sorry, it's going to get cloying and sappy."
But it's possible to tackle such themes in a way that ISN'T cloying and sappy.
I too thought Up was simplistic and uninteresting.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:57:01 +0000

"It's sad to see Pixar's trajectory"? Dude, your head must have scaled new heights in its climb up your ass. Pixar has the single greatest track record for quality in modern cinema today. If your blind or ignorant to that fact then you're a moron.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:29:44 +0000

NEWT is dead simply because they never cracked the story. Simple as that. Also, Cars sells billions in merchandise. In the end, Pixar still needs to make a profit, so if a successful sequel means the creative freedom that spawned riskier, less-commercial projects like Wall-E, Ratatouille and Up (which was famously predicted by Disney execs to be the studio's lowest grossing movie) then I say make a Cars 2 and 3 if need be.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:16:20 +0000

To be fair, "American Dog" was a mess and Sanders did himself no favors by his stubborn refusal to try to compromise.

And yes, Up is fantastic and I strongly disagree with your opinion. When the theme of the movie is about regret and the acceptance of death and loss, I'm sorry, it's going to get cloying and sappy.

Also, there's nothing wrong with a movie adhering to basic story structure when the story itself has so many fantastical elements - it makes it more palatable to audiences.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:04:17 +0000

It is sad to see Pixar's trajectory. Everyone at Pixar swore when they were bought/satanically digested by Disney that they would never be a sequels-dependent company, that they would continue to take chances. I realize it's family fare here, but I might be the only human on Earth who found Up! to be cloying, simplistic, structurally uninteresting…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:30:55 +0000

you can thank lassetter for the demise of "NEWT". it was along the same ground Chris Sanders' "American Dog" (now the HORRID "Bolt").
funny to think the same happened to him with "The Little Toaster"; twenty years later he's doing the same.