CGTalk - Pixar's On the Hunt!!

flipnap

02-05-2003, 04:11 PM

What did Jobs do wrong here? I cant believe what im reading.. let them grow up? I wish they would make movies geared at the 12 and over crowd? These are some pretty insulting comments.. and what makes you think Pixar films arent geared toward adults? because they arent rated "R"? If you think pixar will ever make an r or pg flick, think again.. And how exactly is their talent being wasted?:eek: ?? im at a loss with that one? And their success isnt because they need to grow up, its because they ARE grown up, and they know exactly what theyre doing; they arent going to change their formula. What would you say qualifies a movie to be for the 12 and over crowd? And i cant WAIT for them to ditch Disney, especially when Disney didnt count TS2!! that was RIDICULOUS.. it goes to show how money hungry they are.. they even had the audacity to say they could make toy story 3 without pixar.. i say puh - lease..... i would choke on my own vomit...

Nicodemus

02-05-2003, 05:52 PM

I think it would be interesting to see what Pixar would do with a more mature content. Not that I think they need to. They have however dabbled......Jerry's game was abit more 'adult' if that is what you want to call it. Red's Dream had a more adult tone also. Either way I do agree that Disney really shot it self in the foot by not counting TS2...and the thought of making TS3 without Pixar is just wrong. Not that it could not happen and could not be good but come on. It would be like someone other than Harrison Ford playing Indy in the next Indiana Jones movie.....it could work but would just not feel quite right.

If nothing else Disney could have endeared themselves to Pixar by accpeting it as one of the 5 pictures in the deal. But by refusing to even consider it they alienated one of the top studios out there, or at the very least fostered some bad feelings. A few years ago I coul see them doing that because they were the only game in town on that level but now......every studio has seen the light and are either setting up themselves or partnering with someone who does these types of films. Obviously there is plenty of interest from the competition so Disney will have to come with a sweet deal or look at having Pixar as competition. We see how well thats work for them so far with Katzenberg over at Dreamworks.

Leslie,.....

PS...my only gripe with Jobs is that this is the man behind Apple, yet 3D on the mac has had to pley catch up to the PC side of things. Not trying to start a war on that topic....and I know the real 3D boom happened while he was ousted and before he came back. Hopefully he will continue to have Apple close the gap and eventually reach parity on the Mac side of things for 3D work.

Grayscale

02-05-2003, 07:15 PM

I am glad to see Pixar getting out from under Disney's umbrella. Not because I want to see more "Adult" content, but because I think they have the creative minds not to have to have Disney.
Now..onto this whole "movie for 12 year olds". Just because The characters aren't swearing and shooting everything in sight doesn't mean it's not an adult movie. Look at some of the "inside" jokes that are in these movies. Not like an 8 year old knows anything about yellow snow (monster's inc). My daughter sure doesn't. I think it's rather ridiculous to say that Pixar needs to "grow up". Them getting away from Disney simply proves how "grown up" they really are. They have such a great name now, that they don't need Disney to help them market the movies. They'll do just fine.

Pixelmaestro

02-05-2003, 07:21 PM

as for the deal with Disney......Disney has lost some clout and muscle with its distribution and promotion ability. The last few releases have demonstrated this, and now they are trying to tighten their belt so that Eisner can once again cash in some 3 figure million dollar stock option bonus.

Stories can be told with out having a R rating, I think Toy Story had more of adult perspective on childhood. Sid was not an angel by any definition.

With regards to Steve Jobs, he seems to be a rare bird. He markets, visualize, and spends money on "DESIGN". I commend him on that principle alone.

He also recognized the potential that Pixar had when he purchased and invested in the company. I don't think he was pushing them to use Apple products, they were using what technology was available to get the job done. I know at one time the rendering farm was mostly SUN boxes. They wanted machines that could crunch the math as fast as possible.

Now Jobs, and the team that surrounds him, I know there are other involved that deserve alot of credit, are in business mode again.

I hope they succees, and I also hope they drop the price of Renderman licenses to nothing. I don't think they want the headache that supporting a large user base requires.

on another side note, I did not like what happened to ExLuna and Entropy. I think there are too many lawyers in the world, or at least in the United States. Unfortunately, Steve Jobs companies have had their fair share of litigation regarding IP law with Microsoft, and has decided to squish the competition.

Gentle Fury

02-06-2003, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by flipnap
What did Jobs do wrong here? I cant believe what im reading.. let them grow up? I wish they would make movies geared at the 12 and over crowd? These are some pretty insulting comments.. and what makes you think Pixar films arent geared toward adults? because they arent rated "R"? If you think pixar will ever make an r or pg flick, think again.. And how exactly is their talent being wasted?:eek: ?? im at a loss with that one? And their success isnt because they need to grow up, its because they ARE grown up, and they know exactly what theyre doing; they arent going to change their formula. What would you say qualifies a movie to be for the 12 and over crowd? And i cant WAIT for them to ditch Disney, especially when Disney didnt count TS2!! that was RIDICULOUS.. it goes to show how money hungry they are.. they even had the audacity to say they could make toy story 3 without pixar.. i say puh - lease..... i would choke on my own vomit...

holy crap.....you need to chill the hell out!!!!!!!

what i MEANT was....without disney over their shoulder their features dont have to be so cute and fluffy.......if you watched the Monsters Inc DVD you will see it has an animatic of the whole original story.....and it was a lot darker....not nearly as slapsticky and had a bit more of an adult feel to it........then disney comes around and makes them fluff it up and make sully a big strong character that everyone can love and adore.....i for one think Johnson was AWESOME! The story was great and it was a bit less drooley (the kid was like 10 or so and a tomboy).

Now, this isnt to say i disliked Monsters Inc......on the contrary, i think it was a SUPERB film and ive seen it many times........(3 when it came out in theaters for example).......all im saying is if it was totally pixars call it wouldnt have been like that......it would have been a lot fuller and a bit deeper.......no so........disney.

oh yeah, and i hate jobs for apple really.............especially for the fact that he pimped out pixar to make that lame ass IPod commercial!!!! That really annoyed me! And as much as i hate Bill Gates and Microshaft..........Steve Jobs and Apple are more the evil empire than anyone before them!!!!! His evil influence shows.......especially in the exluna case!

anyway.........QUIT YELLING!!!!!!!!!

you can get a point across without blowing up on someone.

flame on

beaker

02-06-2003, 07:56 AM

I doubt pixar was influenced that much by disney execs for the story in their movies. Just from watching all of their shorts before they even had a deal with disney(luxo, tin toy, knick knack). Also from watching any of the making of material with any of the dvd's. It's pretty hard to imagine them doing anything else because all of these guys are 8 year old's at heart(and many have kids of their own).

I also believe that they will end up going with disney in the end. Nothing can beat disney's marketing power and just the mass amount of merchandising they do. The only other company that is close to disney in this sense would be Dreamworks. Compare the amount of toys and other merchandise of Monsters Inc to Ice Age. There is no comparison.

This is just a barganing chip. Right now Pixar only gets 50% of the profits from the movie. Disney does pay for the cost of making the movie and the promotion of it, but also they own the rights to all the characters pixar creates and they keep all the profits from any other venues(toys, merchandising, etc...) My guess is that they will use this to bargan for a higher profit margin, maybe other things like keeping the rights to the characters or being able to buy back the rights of the characters after a few years(so they don't run into the problem they are having with disney being an ass about TS3 and having someone else making it).

Go!Raiders

02-06-2003, 08:17 AM

http://www.sunspot.net/entertainment/news/bal-artslife-news-pixardisney05,0,4921428.story?coll=bal-entertainment-headlines

Here is more detail on the whole thing. I hope the link works.

Jimzip

02-06-2003, 10:25 AM

Steve Jobs... Evil?
Oh how ridiculous, he's a loving, kind, good-hearted man with an eye for what needs to be done. Just look at this picture from 'sick_bears.com'..

Jimzip

02-06-2003, 10:28 AM

oh! :annoyed:
That didn't work.. The picture was funny too!
ah, never mind, just picture Jobs hugging a teddy up on a stage..:cool:

elfufu

02-07-2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Gentle Fury

oh yeah, and i hate jobs for apple really.............especially for the fact that he pimped out pixar to make that lame ass IPod commercial!!!! That really annoyed me! =

here we go again, the immature 1 sided apple remarks. Did apple kill someone you know? because you sound like you loose sleep over it. Apple , IBM who cares man. nerds nerds nerds

Gentle Fury

02-07-2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by elfufu
here we go again, the immature 1 sided apple remarks. Did apple kill someone you know? because you sound like you loose sleep over it. Apple , IBM who cares man. nerds nerds nerds

yes, apple ran over my puppy!

BrainFaucet

02-07-2003, 06:43 PM

I'm glad Pixar is leaving Disney. Pixar doesn't need Disney, and I don't think they've really needed them since the success A Bug's Life.

Disney isn't getting anywhere with it's current managment and Pixar will be a safe distance away when Disney starts realizing it's falling.

Maybe this means we will be able to see a Toy Story 3!:bounce:

flipnap

02-07-2003, 06:47 PM

No diggity doubt.. Tom hanks wants in as well as tim allen and the rest of the crew (minus varney poor guy).. they have solid script for TS3 and everything but Pixar wont touch it till they are out of the shadow.. why would they after Disney wouldnt let them skate with TS2.. but hey you know Disney, a nice mutlimillion dollar free bee it was for them.. I say good riddance.. you know, if they hadnt done what they did with TS2, i might feel different, but come on, how messed up was that..

gruvsyco

02-07-2003, 06:47 PM

From what I hear, Disney own the rights to Toy Story and everything associated with it. If there is going to be a TS3, it will more likely come from Disney than Pixar :(

I don't think Disney/Pixar is a bad combination. I don't think an exclusive deal is a good idea though. And although, I don't know all of the facts behind the Disney/Pixar story, my input is that Disney needs to stop treating them like a little b**ch

elfufu

02-07-2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Gentle Fury
yes, apple ran over my puppy!

well thats what you get..now if you would have had a G4 laptop you;d be outside in the yard and would have seen that coming.

:p

beaker

02-07-2003, 07:51 PM

As I said earlier, they are just using this as a barganing chip. They do need the mouse, but they have to use other companies bids on them in order to get a better deal on profits from disney. No one in the world has the advertising power and distribution channels to the consumer like disney does.

Lunatique

02-08-2003, 12:46 AM

I think when people refer to more "mature" themed works to come from Pixar, they don't necessarily mean rated R/sex/violence.

Think Brother Grimm's original writings--not the sugar-coated Disney versions.

Someone mention Studio Ghibli--Miyazaki's production company, and I would love to see something along those lines too.

carefulconan

02-08-2003, 01:30 AM

Now with out wading in to the Mac debate( I've learnt my lesson)
I think Pixar need to get some rights to some fantasy books
ala Jack Vance or Robin Hobbs and get into making some
big screen interpretations.
(if you havent read either of these two authors check them out.)
they will attract audiences from both their reputation,
and that of the authors. They will also get into the sequel
business which is always nice. And get the heck away from
cutesy toys in a box.

They need to break new ground away from
comedy and into making movies with more mature content
and add some more complexity to Pixar's range of styles.

I would love to see some new material that doesn't
necessarily involve, woody and buzz.
in fact I think ts2 killed it for me.
How much can you do with them any way?
Sure ppl will react with hostility to my last comment
but Pixar should ditch comedy for a while. they know how to
do it and do it well. so move on.

Disney? who's Disney? didn't he die?
oh no hes frozen in stasis. now I remember.

Gentle Fury

02-09-2003, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Lunatique
I think when people refer to more "mature" themed works to come from Pixar, they don't necessarily mean rated R/sex/violence.

Think Brother Grimm's original writings--not the sugar-coated Disney versions.

Someone mention Studio Ghibli--Miyazaki's production company, and I would love to see something along those lines too.

thank you lunatique!

at least someone understood i didnt mean i wanted pixar porn!

but i think anyone that knows ghibli should have understood what i meant when i said that :)

urgaffel

02-09-2003, 06:30 AM

Pixar aren't the only ones who could use some maturity. Just look at the original concepts for Shrek. A helluva lot cooler than what they actually went with, that cutesy transvestite dragon shite...

monotypic

02-09-2003, 06:41 AM

mmmm.. if only pixar would do something with studio ghibli... *sighs*.. i can dream at least can't i?

beaker

02-09-2003, 08:18 AM

>>I would love to see some new material that doesn't necessarily involve, woody and buzz. in fact I think ts2 killed it for me.

Ts2 is my favorite. I thought it was much better than the first one. Much more cinematic and a much broader range of emotions(made you laugh just as much as it made you cry). Anyways, they have only made 2 TS movies. The next 5 movies they have planned are not TS related. Not sure what you mean by needing new material because every single one of their movies are based on original materials. Why should they look elsewhere for new ideas if they are doing perfectly well creating original ideas in the first place?

>>but Pixar should ditch comedy for a while. they know how to
do it and do it well. so move on.

Many people say if it ain't broke don't fix it. I think they are doing a perfectly good job at what they do, making good kids movies that make you laugh and cry that also appeal to the adult audience.

carefulconan

02-09-2003, 11:25 AM

Well point taken about originality.
I was probably having a bit of a fantasty about it.
but man why stay chained to the arms of small children.

I don't see why a top company with heaps of talent has to
pump out stuff for just one market.

But each to his own on this.
I think Heck don't get trapped on kiddie Island.
Surley you have a heart for all the animators there, who want
to model things other than stuff from the Kmart toyzone.

I know I'm simplifying and I really admire Pixar. So don't get
me wrong. It's just diversity is a good thing.

parallax

02-09-2003, 02:53 PM

I think the market for adult-audience animated movies is too small.
At least, in europe/americas that (probably) is.
Look at FF spirits within (well, ok, story sucked thats another discussion)

Pixar makes all-audience movies.
The same goes for ice-age/shrek ie.

flipnap

02-09-2003, 03:51 PM

how much more diverse can you get than going from hairy monsters to fish in a sea to automobiles? i mean really.. the folks over at pixar are putting out serious animation, just try to animate anything even remotely close to what they do and you can see why they are on top. more "serious" subject matter would not make a stronger challenge for them so that argument is moot.. i watched monsters and a tear literally came to my eye when sulley peeked in boos door at the end of the movie, it really moved me emotionally.. if thats not an impact for all ages than i dunno what is.. and you guys talk about wanting to see darker stories.. One of the reasons FF failed was because the sotry was so dark and evryone dies.. all the characters youve come to know die.. people want to see a movie to escape reality, not watch it..the majority of people dont want to see that, thats why hollywood doesnt stay true to concept work, they always fluff it out, pirattes of the caribbean probably wont look a third of what the art look like.. batman was as close to being a psycopath as one gets, mentally disturbed darkness.. and look at the movie they made.. it was a joke.. most of the "adult" films i see these days are a joke.. I dont even understand why they had to curse in Shrek.. i mean, im sitting there with my 4 year old neice, trying to explain to her why you cant go around calling people a "kiss Ass" like the donkey did.. its like, wasteful and insulting.. do they really think that my "adult" mind cant stay focused on the storie long enough that they have to throw some curse words.. especially in a film marketed for children.. bill cosby was one of the funniest guys i ever heard.. as a kid growing up, listening to records of him (why is there air, etc) i just lost it, the guy was sooo funny.. not a single curse word or perverse material.. just plain old great stroytelling, because that make a good comedian.. and thats what pixar is, great storytellers.. anyway, my hands falling off from the rant so im outta..

noisewar

02-09-2003, 09:32 PM

Last I heard, Pixar LIKES putting out what they put out, not because it's kiddie and fluffy for Disney. That's just what they do.

I feel bad for Pixar and Shigeru Miyamoto... apparently anything not ultr-realistic is "kiddie" now and not worth the time for "mature" audiences. Frankly I'm still a kid at heart, and fun is fun.

beaker

02-10-2003, 12:39 AM

>>Last I heard, Pixar LIKES putting out what they put out, not because it's kiddie and fluffy for Disney. That's just what they do.

Exactly, just watch any of the making of features on the dvd's. John Lasseter is a 8 year old kid in a 40 something year old body :) Same with all the other high ups at pixar. Who else would have a paper airplane contest for 400+ employees and then record it and put the entire thing on the dvd as an easter egg? Even better, the story description for bugs life that they sent to the execs at disney where they took a video camera and filmed a stuffed floppy bug flying around the pixar campus.

carefulconan

02-10-2003, 04:05 AM

I think the Dalai lama said something once about
how life is constantly changing, nothing remains the same.
And humans hate change. Guess what happens if you don't
accept change and adapt and try new things. you become
dead or so boring you look dead... ala mr disney.

Again I must say here I love pixar. and hope they do well.
just my opinion on what i would like to see.
and i dont think adult material instantly equates to gore.
so lets recap
change = good.
adult content doesn't mean
porn and it doesnt mean gore.
pixar=excellence

ok.

johnny_riptide

02-10-2003, 06:36 AM

Will Disney do a Toy Story 3 without Pixar?

Although Disney has rights to all stories and characters created under the Disney/Pixar partnership, I really don't think that Disney would ever attempt, or even consider making a CG feature length animated sequel without Pixar.

Durring the Pixar conference call last week, someone asked Jobs about Disney making sequels on without Pixar. Jobs responded by saying Disney has the right to decide to make a sequel. Under the deal, however, Disney must first offer the production of the sequel to Pixar. If Pixar chooses not to make the film, Disney has the right to make it on their own. Under the agreement, Disney has no rights to any data or technology created by Pixar, ie models, textures, software, ect. Meaning Disney would basically have to start from scratch.

I think all Disney has ever really considered making under the deal was 2D spin-offs for DVD and Saturday morning like they have already done with the animated series "Buzz Lightyear of Star Command".

Some of you here might find last weeks conference call interesting. Here's the link to the audio. (http://web.servicebureau.net/conf/meta?i=1112348235&c=2343&m=was&u=/w_ccbn.xsl&date_ticker=2_6_2003_PIXR) The first 10 minutes of the audio addresses the financial aspects of Pixar, then Jobs begins to talk about the future of Pixar and begins to fields questions. So, if you want to skip to the more interesting part, move your "Seek" slider of the player to about the 10 minute mark.

As far as Pixar doing a film for "adults"?

John Lasseter's response to this question has been, "We already have - we've done four of them, they happen to include kids too." It seems that alot of people believe that Pixar is making Disney films, when in reallity it's Pixar making Pixar films. I totally agree with with what Beaker and noisewar have posted on this.

Also, here are links to a couple of NY Times articles pertaining to this thread. Just to warn you, to view the links you may need to register a login with the NY Times.

As Animation Goes Digital, Disney Fights for Its Crown (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/10/business/media/10DRAW.html)
GLENDALE, Calif., Feb. 9 — Rarely does Hollywood-style glamour spill into....

A Corporate Cliffhanger Starring Disney and Pixar (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/10/business/media/10PACT.html )
GLENDALE, Calif., Feb. 9 — The most watched drama at the Walt Disney Company these days is not its live-action football hit, "Remember the Titans," but the real-life clash of two executive giants...

flipnap

02-10-2003, 09:03 AM

very interesting post johnny.. thanks for the link.. and as far as

(change = good.
adult content doesn't mean
porn and it doesnt mean gore.

i think, as i said before, animating a film about furry monsters, then fish, then cars is quite a change if you ask me.. And at that pace, change isnt always good if the formula works.. why would people suddenly decide to make green traffic lights mean stop.. and what does adult content mean then? Please dont take this as an attack conan, im just curious as to what your definition would be then.. strangely enough, i consider pixar films the most adult content there is.. the stories they put out are so rich and complex that they rival most of the hollywood flicks, where its 90 filler and no killer.. frankly, most of the times, i find myself very bored with the trie films these days.. i personally believe if anything needs to change its hollywoods formula.. I think the producers need to take note of some foreign successes like "Amalie" to re-evaluate what people are looking for..

carefulconan

02-10-2003, 12:25 PM

well flipnap I aint taking it personal, it's good to get some
conversation happening and it's also interesting to see others
views.

What can I say here goes....

change isnt always good if the formula works..

Well in my opinion artists perfect their art and then move to
new levels. maybe working in the same medium or branching
into new ones or exploring different themes. It keeps the artist
fresh. and it doesnt mean you can't go back.

and what does adult content mean then?

well it means to me anyway something other than musicals,
coming of age type flicks, talking animals,dumb adventures,
christmas specials, talking toys...or robin williams.

Sure i take the point its not the actors/models but the subject matter that contains the actual CONTENT, but basically any movie with any of these components and maybe more than one is bound to NOT contain adult content.

To me adult content is themes and storylines that might contain
endings that dont flash the end. or they lived happily ever after,
or contain the characters kissing. in fact the ending might
not be happy at all. Think Scorsese think Snatch, that kind
of gear, even manga has some pretty good adult concepts
the unforgettable ghost in the shell. Art that moves you.
doesnt always have to feel pleasant.

Don't think for one moment I'm saying give me hollywoods
crap. I'm saying produce unique pieces and dont be constrained
or limited to, all in one family type movies.
but maybe the revenue from figurines is just to good to let go of.
Any way I could rave more. and all of this is totally individual.

hope you enjoy my post sir flip nap.

flipnap

02-10-2003, 12:31 PM

Yeah, i mean.. i can understand where you are coming from but we're talking about pixar.. and as you said..

Art that moves you.
doesnt always have to feel pleasant.

well, Pixar would never in amillion years make a movie that doesnt feel pleasant.. were talking about a company whose whole existance is based on happy endings..

janhath

02-10-2003, 10:12 PM

I like PIXAR just the way they are.:) I only wish they could add talent so we could get two movies a year.More adult oriented a bit,would be OK,but just a tad.Why mess with perfection.:beer:

webfox

02-11-2003, 01:20 AM

I'm surprised that PIXAR is looking at Warner Brothers for any kind of partnership.

Who in their right mind would consider putting their distribution into the hands of the bunglers who screwed over "The Iron Giant"?

Eudaimic

02-14-2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by flipnap
One of the reasons FF failed was because the sotry was so dark and evryone dies.. [/i]

We meet again :)

FF failed primarily because there's a cultural rift between eastern and western storytelling and culture. FF was telling its story in an eastern way, but aiming it primarily at the western market.

On top of that, it was being vague. (Did anyone actually catch that the reason the alien spirit turned blue when it touched her was because it went through her womb where the child she had just started 'making' with whatshisface when they were in space was... Riiiight, that's a really good way to tell a story right there :)

The dialouge was disturbingly bad and the characters amazingly cliché...

Saving Private Ryan. A large part of the characters die. It did tremendously. Gladiator, he dies... It did amazingly well.

people want to see a movie to escape reality, not watch it..the majority of people dont want to see that

Is that why Band of Brothers did so well? That seemed pretty real to me.

People watch movies to be entertained, enlightened, educated and perhaps more than one of those things at the same time.

batman was as close to being a psycopath as one gets, mentally disturbed darkness.. and look at the movie they made.. it was a joke...

I agree on the 3rd and 4th (YOWSERS! They were baaad). But the first was pretty damn good.

In the end though, I agree, Pixar is great as it is, if people want more 'mature' material, go some place else.

Shrek?!... <shudder> I never did see why people thought it was all that.

My Fault

05-12-2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by carefulconan
To me adult content is themes and storylines that might contain endings that dont flash the end. or they lived happily ever after, or contain the characters kissing. in fact the ending might not be happy at all. Think Scorsese think Snatch, that kind
of gear, even manga has some pretty good adult concepts
the unforgettable ghost in the shell. Art that moves you.
doesnt always have to feel pleasant.

But can't adult themes also contain happy endings and living happily ever after? Heck Snatch ended pretty well for Tommy and Turkish :thumbsup:

Personally I like that Pixar is taking the harder road, i.e. a film that can be enjoyed by everybody not just adults.... not that I would be against a Miyazaki/Pixar team up :applause:

Per-Anders

05-12-2003, 07:29 AM

from what i can tell... the non porn and non violent adult just means "dark". i think you will see a lot of dark cg animations, but just not from pixar in the immediate future. pixar enjoy making escapist fun films.

plus we have to remember certain things about cg. firstly it is still animation, full cg films look like animations and in peoples heads animations=cartoons. the trouble is you get too dark and it totally misses it's audience (apart from some cg geeks), cartoons are too childish for most adults, but if they're dark then they're too adult for most children... meanwhile the mid to upper teens are going to think that they're simply not cool.

till the price of cg comes down to the level of independent film, then it's going to be driven by market force and past burnt fingers. (disney did badly in the past for instance when they went too dark, and lost out for the reasons above).

MarkusM

05-12-2003, 10:04 AM

---------------
Will Disney do a Toy Story 3 without Pixar?

Although Disney has rights to all stories and characters created under the Disney/Pixar partnership, I really don't think that Disney would ever attempt, or even consider making a CG feature length animated sequel without Pixar.
----------------

You are probably correct, but they are expanding their full CG output. There's the pigeon film "Valiant" from Vanguard (www.menacefx.com) with Disney money and marketing behind it. A low budget CG feature compared to Pixar budgets, but still a full CG feature.