Iger hints at Cars sequel

[GatorNic]

I really hope not. I liked Cars, but it was my least favorite Pixar film. I smell the Disney machine at work trying to cash in on a sequel. :deal:

[Capel]

yeah i agree. cars was mediocre at best, at least compared to their other films. and probably the least warranted for a sequel as well.

hey nix21, having fun guy 1?

[cresshead]

cars was not a great film..was the most non pixar 'pixar quality' film to date..i watched it once from a rental...won;t buy it even if it's in the bargin bin, so the prospects of a carsII film/dvd is not making me sit up...more like slump in a corner!

maybe they just want to reuse the models and sets rather than make new ones for a new film...would be a great idea comming from an accountant at disney but not so good from a director/scriptwriter unless they really give the cars idea a good shake and make something worthwhile out of it.

i find meet the robinsons, monsters inc and the incredibles more more worthy of a new version.

[GatorNic]

hey nix21, having fun guy 1?

The most fun in the world. :thumbsup:

[JesseDavis]

I really hope not. I liked Cars, but it was my least favorite Pixar film. I smell the Disney machine at work trying to cash in on a sequel. :deal:

I highly doubt any cars sequel is in prep. Why would anyone do a sequel to their (probably) least successful movie?

[robcat2075]

Why would anyone do a sequel to their (probably) least successful movie?

To make money.

Cars was the #3 US movie in 2006 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=cars.htm).

Cars merchandise generated $1 Billion + in sales in 2006 (http://flixer.com/x/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=890&topic_id=504)

And it's just possible they can dream up a worthy story.

[Mayamaniac]

To make money.

Cars was the #3 US movie in 2006 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=cars.htm).

Cars merchandise generated $1 Billion + in sales in 2006 (http://flixer.com/x/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=890&topic_id=504)

And it's just possible they can dream up a worthy story.
Cars was a phenomenal success. Those who didn't think so are just oblivious to it because they didn't enjoy the movie. I thought Cars wouldn't be entertaining when I first heard of it, but it turned out to be a very decent movie, the usual Pixar standard. With Lassetter, Stanton, and Bird, you can't go wrong with whatever they create, sequels or original stories.

[Littleberu]

Financial website The Motley Fool reports (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/02/06/disney-makes-bears-look-goofy.aspx) that during a conference call to investors...



Cars was a monster success in licensing deals.

I think Jim Hill talked about it before, like it was a fact.

[ivanisavich]

I think the problem with Cars was that its characters were geared towards a bit of a niche market.

I think everyone can relate to an interest in superheroes, or people/animals, or monsters, or toys etc....but cars are not things that I really would care a whole lot to see animated...thus it was harder for me to be interested in the film.

I came out of the film enjoying it, but definitely wouldn't care to see it again. Oh...and plus I don't like owen wilson, so the voice work slightly annoyed me throughout.

[grundelboy]

Please no! I'd rather see a sequal to a bugs life.

I know that they put the stop to toystory 3 when they joined forces. How about they take a stab at that script again.

Perhapse pixar has run out of ideas?
I'm just more sad about this then anything. Me and my kids really didn't like cars at all.

[SheepFactory]

Oh man if there is one Pixar movie that does NOT need a sequel it is Cars. I liked the movie but the story is told.

[harmonic01]

I don't think the problem was with it being talking Cars. I could still relate to them if the story was good enough. The animation and everything technical was great. I thought the story was the most boring thing ever, though. In the middle of it I got very very bored. If they will come up with an engaging story, it could be a very entertaining sequel. I guess we'll wait and see. :shrug:

[Breinmeester]

I think the problem with Cars was that its characters were geared towards a bit of a niche market.
Actually, Cars is their biggest merchandised film. That's probaply why they're doing a sequel.

I know that they put the stop to toystory 3 when they joined forces. How about they take a stab at that script again.
Toy Story 3 comes out in 2010.

Personally I think they can pull it off, but I also think Cars was a weak film by Pixar standards. There are a lot of factors to that, which can be avoided in a sequel, but two flaws of the basic idea still stand: cars as characters in a world without humans that looks like our world and Owen Wilson voicing the main character.

[anakinbrego]

My two year old nephew is obsessed with Cars, it's all he wants to watch. He has all the die cast cars. I still see little boys playing with them, it's almost two years later. It's one of the safest movies to put your little ones infront of.

[stage-gr]

I liked cars but if they had to force out a sequel that should have been for the incredibles

[BigPixolin]

I loved Cars. I don't think cars is such a niche market I think it is pretty broad. If your a guy and don't like cars in general then your in a niche market.

[Robert Magee]

I think all of us in this forum don't understand some people's obsession with cars because we spend all our extra money on computer equipment ;-) Isn't car racing one of the most popular sports in the world and CARS fed off that culture. John Lasseter has a personal interest in the topic because his father owned a garage and fixed cars. Maybe he is interested in creating a second movie that raises the bar the same way Toy Story 2 was even better than Toy Story.

Robert

[cookepuss]

i find meet the robinsons, monsters inc and the incredibles more more worthy of a new version.
I was actually surprised by "Meet the Robinsons". I wasn't expecting to like it as much as I did, especially considering the relative development hell that the project was - having late rewrites and recasting of the main voice actor. However, it was oodles of fun. I can easily see it being deserving of a sequel.

I'd even love the sequel to the much maligned Hoodwinked. Granted, the animation was pure b-side and very much NOT Pixar quality, but it stood out to me as being enjoyable and a bit different. I'd sooner watch that than even Shrek 4 or 5, especially since #3 was pretty meh.

I LOVE "The Incredible". Sure, the story and the characters were derivative of the genre cliches. However, there was a genuine love for the characters as people instead of just genre conventions. Pixar managed to take generic characters, a generic bad guy plot, their even more generic family formula, and turn it all into something that transcended all of that "Brand X" stuff.

To me, Incredibles stands as the most maturely written and produced Pixar film to date. Monsters Inc was probably their most original.

I think all of us in this forum don't understand some people's obsession with cars because we spend all our extra money on computer equipment ;-) Isn't car racing one of the most popular sports in the world and CARS fed off that culture. John Lasseter has a personal interest in the topic because his father owned a garage and fixed cars
I get it. I'll sit down and watch the occasional Nascar event on TV. I kinda dig it. That isn't the core of the problem. The sad fact is, as a movie, "Cars" was pretty much uninspired. Correction.... It WAS inspired.... in the largest part by the movie "Doc Hollywood."

I don't care how Lassseter cites his love for automobiles or his long family trips as the inspiration for the movie. Anybody willing to believe that is probably also willing to believe that the "Doc Hollywood" wasn't the most recent movie from his Netflix queue when that script was written.


Doc Hollywood: Big city doctor on his way to Beverly Hills for the interview of a lifetime. He's about to get his dream job as a Plastic surgeon. Along the way, he ends up in an accident that gets him stuck in a small town, where he's sentenced to be their local doctor as community service. He falls in love with the local girl who is smart, sassy, and clearly not of the local mentality. When given the opportunity to go back to his old life, he choses to stay in the country. He's grown to love the simple life and the smaller things.

Cars: A big city race car is on his way to the race of a lifetime. He ends up in an accident, where he gets stuck in a small town and sentenced to do community service. Along the way, he falls for the smart, sassy townie who is clearly more complex than the rest of the locals. In the end, he chooses the simpler existence because he learned to appreciate that less complex way of life.


Swap out doctor for race car. Swap out people for CG toons. Swap out Michael J Fox for Owen Wilson. Same darn movie.


Okay. I know that its a little mean spirited to constantly drag that issue up every time "Cars" gets mentioned. However, who else among us is actually annoyed that not only did it get nominated for a host of awards, but it actually won some? Awards for a ripped off plot no less. That's like me taking the story of "Star Wars" - including each and every plot twist - and remaking it using animated farm animals.

It bothers me because Pixar is a company that's supposed to stand for excellence. However, they stooped so low as to take the story from a 20 year old movie, nearly whole cloth, and practically claim divine inspiration. I remember watching Lasseter on some awards show - Golden Globes maybe. He was geekishly rambling on about his inpiration for the movie. I kept thinking to myself, "Now THAT is chutzpah."

I'm perfectly happy to accept the notion that every movie, song, poem, or miscellaneous piece of art draws its inspiration from other sources. That's the way of the world. However, here, it was so blatant that it darn near bordered on being an IP rights violation.

And it's just possible they can dream up a worthy story.
I'm almost tempted to say that I HOPE Disney-Pixar makes Cars II. Maybe they'll rip off an even better old movie for the next plot. "Back to the Future" maybe? :p Hey, as long as we're sticking with Michael J Fox movies. :)


Am I wrong to think that the movie doesn't deserve to be loved for more than its visuals? The notion of a sequel to this movie almost sickens me.

The fact that the Wall-E trailers conjure up images of various 80s movies, which shall remain unnamed, is almost disheartening. I'm sensing the fact that Pixar, the original outsiders, have become such a part of the corporate machine that they have adopted their mentality. Scary and sad at the same time.

Pixar has a formula at this point - a decidely Pixar way of doing things. Its like Danny Elfman music. You know what to expect. You love his past work. Even though every new piece evoke everything else he's ever done, you still hire him for your movies because he's a "sure thing". That's Pixar. They hit the predictable family story. The mix it up with some newer elements and spins on old stuff. It all feels new, yet familiar. You continue to take your kids to see it because its a predictable safe bet movie.

IMHO, they're relying too much on that forumula for success. It almost seems like they can rely on that bulit-in audience to carry them through while they deliver derivative and highly familiar stories. It works for them, clearly. However, its one of the reasons why my absolute, unquestioning Pixar love has diminished over the years. They've become "the man". ;)

[kmest]

give us "Incredibles:Mirage Strykes back"

[robcat2075]

I get it. I'll sit down and watch the occasional Nascar event on TV. I kinda dig it. That isn't the core of the problem. The sad fact is, as a movie, "Cars" was pretty much uninspired. Correction.... It WAS inspired.... in the largest part by the movie "Doc Hollywood."

My theory was that they chose this less-original-than-most concept to fill out that last entry in their original deal with Disney. At the time there were lots of indications that Pixar was going to split with Disney at the end of that deal; whatever this movie was about was IP they weren't going to be able to take with them. So they chose to develop something not quite as precious. They still did their usual great job on it and gave it 100%.

That's my theory.

Of course things changed by the time the movie was done. They did stay with Disney and the Cars merchandise turned out to be huge, but who knew at the time?

[Bourbon Thret]

To make money.


Cars merchandise generated $1 Billion + in sales in 2006 (http://flixer.com/x/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=890&topic_id=504)

They generated $1 Billion worth of landfill. No wonder Wall-E has so much crap to clean up.

[P_T]

So they chose to develop something not quite as precious. They still did their usual great job on it and gave it 100%.You said they chose to develop something less than their usual high quality and then you said they gave it 100%. That's a contradiction you know. :hmm:

[Michael5188]

I know it's a little off topic, but anyone notice how similar Bug's Life was to Three Amigos with chevy chase, steve martin, and martin short?

Entertainers called to aid a village in need to fight off a bunch of bullies, thinking all the time it's a performance until at last they find out the truth and end up fighting in some creative way. Both movies are similar but also have many differences, doesn't feel ripped off to me though.

[SimonReeves]

I quite liked Cars, I think I was mainly just struck by the visuals, seems like the film was pretty wrapped up though. And to go along with that unlikely opinion I don't really favor Incredibles as a lot of people seem too (prefer monsters).

But maybe thats just a taste thing, maybe its the comic/superhero kinda thing which isn't my tea.

[Geta-Ve]

I would rather a Cars sequel than a Rat' sequel. That movie was boring.

[SergioSantos]

beautiful environments in Cars, but worst pixar movie ever...
not interested in a sequel.

[Kai01W]

I would rather a Cars sequel than a Rat' sequel. That movie was boring.

Aeh.... no. Rat' was (despite its shortcomings)Pixars best movie till now. Cars was easily the worst. I agree though that we don't need a sequel to Ratatouille cause the story is told...

-k

[cookepuss]

I liked Ratatouille. I mean, I didn't love it, but it was fairly enjoyable. The thing is, we've seen the talking rat thing time and again. And the thing with Remy controlling Linguini... we've seen variations of that in other movies too, like the old Steve Martin flick "All of Me" or "Weekend at Bernies". The undertones off the story, class struggle, was new enough for CG, but the plot points and overall execution were predictable. It was still a fun movie, but it was what it was.

I don't necessarily think that it was Pixar's best film to date. That's a gross overstatement. The characterization and emotional depth was still far less than in "The Incredibles". The visuals might have been bumped up a notch, but I think that we can all agree that this is not 1995 anymore. The shock and awe factor of pretty CG is starting to take a backseat to the importance of story.

Story-wise, Monsters Inc and Incredibles tie for Pixar's best - at least to me.

As far as Pixar's worst film... I've gotta go with Nemo. Ellen DeGeneres' character was the highlight, but I found the rest of the film to be fairly boring. I can't say that its the underwater angle because I was mildly entertained by Shark Tale, in a brainless popcorn flick sorta way. It was just that the "little boy lost" angle wasn't doing it for me.

Put my geeky comic guy love for Incredibles aside for a moment. The last Pixar movie to really hit me on a deep and fundamental level was Monsters Inc.. If you want to really feel the power of CG, just re-watch that scene where Sully and Mike are racing along that parade of moving doors. I don't have much of a fear of heights, but that scene STILL sends shivers down to my toes each and every time - literally. That's a pretty powerful thing. As primal and basic as that emotion is, I can't say that any Pixar movie since has made me feel something so deeply.

THAT is one of my big problems with Cars. As a 5 year old, I might have been wide eyed and easily impressed. As a 33 year old, I'm like, "Heheheh. That's cute. Ah! Okay. Well, I guess they're going to go with such and such as the next plot twist. ... Yup. And the moral of the story is... Like I figured."

The formula:

1) 1 foundation message or theme, usually relating to family, friendship, or love
2) 1 guiding message or theme, such as class struggle, coming of age, or childhood fears
3) Anthropomorphized objects, animals, or creatures
4) The sidekick character or comic relief
5) Jokes for the kids
6) Jokes for mom & dad
7) Happy ending

You could say that about a whole lot of family movies, but I think that it especially applies to the Pixar formula. You're never worried about the characters for too long because the movie will predictably have a schmaltzy happy ending. You laugh at jokes your kids might not get for 10 more years. Your kids laugh at jokes that you probably might have not laughed at for 20. There's a wholesome 1950's undecurrent to the story - nothing that will ever warrant the existence of a censor. Nothing ever offends and there's a morality play at work throughout.

Tack on some pretty visuals and that's Pixar. Your $10 will always be well spent because you know that the movie will hit each and every one of those 7 beats full force. Incredibles, imho, is probably the only one to even partially break that formula. I chalk that up to them brining in the outside writing talents of Brad Bird.

[Michael5188]

Maybe you guys should try scrutinizing a little less and just enjoy a movie. I don't blame anyone for not liking the films, but don't try to turn your opinion into a science, and express it as fact.

Not to mention the Pixar formula I keep hearing about is pretty much a formula I see with every animated film.

[Locutus]

My two year old nephew is obsessed with Cars, it's all he wants to watch. He has all the die cast cars. I still see little boys playing with them, it's almost two years later. It's one of the safest movies to put your little ones infront of.
Wow, I thought my nephew was the only two year old with an obsession with Cars. Apparently it nevers gets old for him.....and I'll have to admit I really enjoyed it.

[cookepuss]

Maybe you guys should try scrutinizing a little less and just enjoy a movie. I don't blame anyone for not liking the films, but don't try to turn your opinion into a science, and express it as fact.

Not to mention the Pixar formula I keep hearing about is pretty much a formula I see with every animated film.


1) Unless expressly noting facts, every post on a forum such as this is opinion based. I have never once said, "I'm right. You're wrong. Done." Nothing of the sort. I would not, cannot, and should not impose my opinions on others. However, I have every right to express them.

2) The "Pixar formula", as I see it, is indeed common and shared by many other animated film. Not everyone though, as there are a whole host of animated films that do not follow those conventions. In all probability, while Disney and Pixar represent the single greatest money makers in all of animation, they only represent a segment of the animation sector and not all of animation itself. They're only a slice of the animation pie. They just happen to rake in the bucks.

3) I do believe that Pixar has its own stylistic and storytelling formula. That's what makes them decidedly unique. That's part of why they're successful. There's no shame in labeling it as such. We've no problem in describing films as being Hitchcockean or Shakespearean. Its the same thing. Other films or stories may also do what they did, but "x" did it so much better than others. That's why they get labeled as such. In some regards, its probably as much an issue of conventional convenience as it is stylistic accuracy.

4)As far as not scrutinizing a movie and simply enjoying it instead.... I'm capable of that too. My enjoyment of the summer popcorn flick is a testament to that. On the other hand, seeing as how Pixar is the industry leader, they automatically place themselves in the unenviable position of scrutiny. I'm not going sit down there and watch the movie with a pen and a pad, but I'm also not going to be like those gushing 15 year olds screaming that it was the best movie ever made and that "x" company or director is God made flesh, mortar, and celluloid. It's perfectly okay to say, "Meh. They've done better." or "Gee. I liked it better when it was called...." No movie, not one, should be above such criticism. There's just too much "me too" in Hollywood. If you see it, call it. I love film as much as the next person. I'm happy to praise them as much as criticize. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Besides, if you turn off your brain too much, you'll happily accept a world full of "Roscoe Jenkins", "Norbit", and "Meet the Spartans" movies. :) If you're okay with that.... Mazel Tov.

[RobertoOrtiz]

Wow, I thought my nephew was the only two year old with an obsession with Cars. Apparently it nevers gets old for him.....and I'll have to admit I really enjoyed it.
You are not alone ...
My 2 year old Nephew WORSHIPS this film.
Hell I am considering painting a couple of Cars themed murals for for him.
-R

[Geta-Ve]

You are not alone ...
My 2 year old Nephew WORSHIPS this film.
Hell I am considering painting a couple of Cars themed murals for for him.
-R

And you know what, as much as we 'adults' may like/dislike the movies this is really what it is all about, the children. These movies are fantastic for children and if kids learn something from them or even if they just make them smile the movies have done their jobs. I would rather a child emulate Cars then Power Rangers, or Pokemon or GTA, or whatever it is kids are emulating these days.

[Michael5188]

1) Unless expressly noting facts, every post on a forum such as this is opinion based. I have never once said, "I'm right. You're wrong. Done." Nothing of the sort. I would not, cannot, and should not impose my opinions on others. However, I have every right to express them.

2) The "Pixar formula", as I see it, is indeed common and shared by many other animated film. Not everyone though, as there are a whole host of animated films that do not follow those conventions. In all probability, while Disney and Pixar represent the single greatest money makers in all of animation, they only represent a segment of the animation sector and not all of animation itself. They're only a slice of the animation pie. They just happen to rake in the bucks.

3) I do believe that Pixar has its own stylistic and storytelling formula. That's what makes them decidedly unique. That's part of why they're successful. There's no shame in labeling it as such. We've no problem in describing films as being Hitchcockean or Shakespearean. Its the same thing. Other films or stories may also do what they did, but "x" did it so much better than others. That's why they get labeled as such. In some regards, its probably as much an issue of conventional convenience as it is stylistic accuracy.

4)As far as not scrutinizing a movie and simply enjoying it instead.... I'm capable of that too. My enjoyment of the summer popcorn flick is a testament to that. On the other hand, seeing as how Pixar is the industry leader, they automatically place themselves in the unenviable position of scrutiny. I'm not going sit down there and watch the movie with a pen and a pad, but I'm also not going to be like those gushing 15 year olds screaming that it was the best movie ever made and that "x" company or director is God made flesh, mortar, and celluloid. It's perfectly okay to say, "Meh. They've done better." or "Gee. I liked it better when it was called...." No movie, not one, should be above such criticism. There's just too much "me too" in Hollywood. If you see it, call it. I love film as much as the next person. I'm happy to praise them as much as criticize. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Besides, if you turn off your brain too much, you'll happily accept a world full of "Roscoe Jenkins", "Norbit", and "Meet the Spartans" movies. :) If you're okay with that.... Mazel Tov.

Touche, I hear ya. Really have no problem with you not liking a movie and I'm glad you can explain why rather than leave it at, the movie is lame, just disagreed with the explanation for Pixar being unoriginal or formulaic. You can always point out common characteristics of something and say it's unorginal, but then ignore what they did different in each movie. So when I say why can't people scrutinize less I don't mean become brainless and enjoy everything thrown at you, not by any means, I mean sometimes people tend to be looking for negativities through the whole movie, focusing on the things they've done everytime, when there are so many more things they changed.

I definitly agree when you say Pixar has a style, even in their storytelling, but I just never felt like it was a formula, like I was watching the same movie over and over each time I saw a new one from them, so I guess for me they switch it up enough.

[Venkman]

The little hoppers at my local theater couldn't sit still for the last 25 minutes of Cars (it was one of the longer Pixar films). I was still drooling over the little touches like the car paint, VW "bugs" and clever landscape design.

The opening pixar short about alien abductions, however, had the entire theater rolling. That was my favorite one yet.

[BigPixolin]

I was still drooling over the little touches like the car paint, VW "bugs" and clever landscape design.


Yeah the paint had me drooling during the whole movie especially the metal flake.
However I thought the landscape design was absloutly horrible when it came to the mountians shaped like the front ends of older cars.

[cookepuss]

The opening pixar short about alien abductions, however, had the entire theater rolling. That was my favorite one yet.
Yeah. "Lifted" was pretty cute. My favorites were still "For the Birds", "Geri's Game", and "One Man Band."

When Ratatouille came out, I actually went to see it my 60-something year old parents - the odd weekend I chill with the folks. Anyway, my father couldn't stop talking about how "in his day" all movies would open up with a cartoon short. It really made him nostalgic.

It's actually something I'd love to see more of in movies - of all types. Its a shame that the financials of the movie business pretty much restrict this type of thing. If it came between 8 movie showings each packaged with a 7 minute short and squezing in 9 showings and no short... We all can guess the choice. Like I said, its a shame really. It'd be the perfect venue for showcasing some of the film industry's best shorts.

[ajcgi]

Imo all sequels that weren't originally part of a trilogy or a series of books are doomed in comparison to the originals.
Shrek 2 is a case in point for me. Shrek I watched time and time again. We're talking about 50 times. Yup, good job I have the collectors edition cos the 16:9 disc skips now.
I digress. Shrek 2 came out. Whereas Shrek had me laughing till I cried several times, Shrek 2 had me smiling. Now that may be me maturing over that time as frankly fart jokes are old hat now to me but having got the dvd on launch I've watched it twice I think.
The third came out... meh. Still haven't seen it.
When Pixar's contract came to its end (before they were truly Disney Pixar), there was word of them going their own way. "Woohoo!" thought I, but no they stayed put, choosing the same family oriented broken-home lovesick storyline that sells so well.
Ratatouille is my favourite of Pixar's so far partly because it veers slightly away from that with the main character being mainly disassociated from the love storyline. Added to that is the superb animation and beautiful looks. It's well rounded and dammit I'll wear that dvd out too. :scream:

[lebada]

cars was a waste of my time and money. it was boring beyond relief and even the visuals, well animate, but the whole thing was "meh".

if a movie makes me think of analyzing its visuals during the tiem it runs...it has failed. rattaouille and finding nemo did not. cars did.

[Michael5188]

When I saw Meet the Robinsons I was really excited to see the old Disney short in front of it, and it was even more exciting to realize how timeless those shorts were as everyone in the audience laughed together.

[robcat2075]

Bob Iger referred to Cars as a "franchise" on CNBC (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=289004&cl=6939134&src=finance&ch=4043681). I'd say that's confirmation they're making more.


Maybe they'll expand Pixar's yearly output to squeeze in sequels without cutting back on original films?

[luckbat]

I know it's a little off topic, but anyone notice how similar Bug's Life was to Three Amigos with chevy chase, steve martin, and martin short?

Entertainers called to aid a village in need to fight off a bunch of bullies, thinking all the time it's a performance until at last they find out the truth and end up fighting in some creative way. Both movies are similar but also have many differences, doesn't feel ripped off to me though.
That's because both films are loosely based on Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047478/plotsummary).

[GotF]

Ratatouille is my favourite of Pixar's so far partly because it veers slightly away from that with the main character being mainly disassociated from the love storyline. Added to that is the superb animation and beautiful looks. It's well rounded and dammit I'll wear that dvd out too. :scream:

While Ratatouille is my 2nd favourite Pixar movie (just behind The Incredibles), I loved it for the same reasons you stated above. That movie has had heavy rotation in my DVD player and iPod (Pixar + Apple ..... hmmm) as of the last month and i wouldn't be surprised if i wore out the DVD player laser.

I liked Cars as well, but yeah making a sequel for a film of this kind points all signs to Disney Pixar walking along the $$$$$ making road

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.