Toy Story 3

http://inhome.rediff.com/movies/2004/nov/17toy.htm

Pixar doesn't need Disney.
Let Disney weep over lost profits. That's what I say!

__________________
Ya got me feelin' hella good so let's just keep on dancin'

Disney is basically digging its own grave.

Are they stupid to not sign Pixar again for another 5 films?
Pixar are basically the only recent movie successes that Disney have had in the past 7-8 years. All of Pixar's movies have been worldwide hits.

It won't take long for them to rake in the profits after they leave Disney at the end of the next film 'Cars'

Yeah, Pixar basically invented CG movies, so I'm sure someone will snatch them the first chance they get.

Yeah, but Disney might just pull it off, they have the money to anyway

__________________
In the year of our Lord 1314
patriots of Scotland
starving and outnumbered
charged the fields at Bannockburn
They fought like warrior poets
They fought like Scotsmen
And won their freedom.

yeah, they may have the money, but will the film entertain?

I wouldn't be surprised if Pixar just became their own publishing house. Is Dreamworks a part of Disney? I remember seeing the Dreamworks logo's on the Shrek/Shrek 2 DVD's so figured I'd ask. Only reason I ask is - if not, Pixar could just go right through Dreamworks and let Disney sit. Pixar really doesn't need Disney anymore.

The Pixar/Disney contract split has a thread here


Oh no they aren't stupid, but neither is Pixar. Pixar is refusing to sign another contract, a very smart move on their part. Disney realizes that Pixar has been the breadwinner for Disney (on the animation movie market) ever since Disney's last classic Mulan (1998).

If Walt Disney could see what Micheal Eisners done to his company. . .Oh well, looks like Eisner will be resigning or being kicked off soon anyhow.

Dreamworks and Pixar have long been considered rivals. Dreamworks first made a splash with their 1998 release of The Prince of Egypt, a release that over-shadowed their CG animation debut of Antz which was released the same year. 1998 seemed to be the turning point in the animation world. That year Disney released Mulan, which I regard as the last Disney classic. That same year Pixar, with the help of Disney produced and released A Bug's Life. With all due respect Antz wasn't much of a movie, but The Prince of Egypt on the othe rhand was spectacular and gained Dreamworks enough push to go and produce Shrek which was released in 2001.

Pixar however, gained the crown when it came to dominating the new medium. They succesfully mastered CG animation, and had the market in their hands. Even Dreamwork's pictures Shrek and 20th Century Fox's production Ice Age (2002) couldn't even come close to Pixar who released Toy Story 2 in 1999, Monster's Inc. in 2001 and Finding Nemo in 2002. Pixar has been the steady producer of Cg animated films since Toy Story's release in 1995.

Disney can survive without Pixar, they are one of the 30 largest companies in the world, whose holdings incluse Touchstone and ABC. Weather or not they regain their spot in the animation market which they held for 40 years in the 20th century is to be decided. I doubt that they will go on and do Toy Story 3 without Pixar, but at the moment they are so desperate, I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

__________________
I am moved by fancies that are curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.
T.S Eliot, "Preludes"

Are you kidding me? Prince of England and Mulan were a disgrace to animation! ANtz on the other hand is my family's favourite, we all loved it. Mulan and other Disney movies are always the same with their "edgy" animation. Disney has something against curves, I mean look at Home on The Range they just can't have normal bodies and faces, it look like they were made out of squares glued together.

__________________
"All I have in this world is my balls and my word, and I don't break them for no one."

Antz is not a favorite of mine, but neither is Mulan. I still consider it to be the last classic Disney film. The Prince of Egypt on the othe rhand is one of my favorite animated films. I'd like to know why you didn't find it appealing.

BTW- Disney animation varies. You don't find the "edgy" animation to be true for alot of Disney's great films. Look at The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and the rest of the.

Those (Little Mermaid, etc.) scary me after I found out how much sexual sublimenal messages are in them.

The difference between the subliminal sexual themes in some of Disney's films (the most notorious being The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and The Lion King) and the outright provactiveness of Antz, is that while it wasn't Disney's fault, but the animators in those films, in Antz it was already in the script.

You can't tell me that Antz doesn't contain strong sexual provacativeness.

Yeah, but at least it's funny!

You still haven't told me why you thought Prince of Egypt was horrible, as the only messages I got from that were very strong biblical ones.