[...] Monsters, Inc. Sequel in the Works? (screenrant.com) [...]

Lay off the caps lock dude, it’s not good for you.

And remember, when comparing Pixar to Dreamworks, it’s all about quality, not quantity. Since 2004 Dreamworks have released 13 movies theatrically compared to 5 from Pixar.

But, out of Dreamworks 13, only 3 got above 80% on Rotten Tomatoes (and I’m graciously including Wallace and Gromit in there although that was really Aardman with funing from Dreamworks). With Pixar, 4 out of those 5 films released not only got over 80% but were all in the high 90’s.

Dreamworks can churn out many films a year because they spend little time and money on developing story and characters. I’m happy for Pixar to spend a little more time doing this if it means we get great movies.

That 60% is predicated on the fact that if they made a Monsters Inc 2, it’d come out in 2013, a year after Cars 2. Since the next 4 films will be, in order, Toy Story 3, Newt, The Bear and the Bow and Cars 2, there’s a good chance they may have another original film or two in the works to come out before Monsters 2. With 4 films already set to come out within the next 3 years, that means that even if Monsters 2 does come to pass, it likely won’t go into, even pre-production until next year at the least, maybe even 2 years, and with a 4 year production, we’ll likely not see it for a while. Either way, I agree, I would like to see more original stuff coming from them, but I’m not going to resent them for doing a Monsters 2.

As for what I said about lost potential, I simply meant the world that they created, not the story, maybe not even the characters (although it probably will be Mike and Sulley centric again). And I understand what you mean about their movies growing in maturity and I do want them to carry on down this road, but that doesn’t mean they can’t, every so often create movies with the innocence and sincerity that a movie like Monsters Inc had. That movie was none-the-worse for a lack of maturity and Pixar have shown that they can excel at both, so why not do both? Why should they have to go down a predetermined path of films that must become more mature each time until they end up with their own equivalent of The Godfather? I’m not saying they shouldn’t, I’m simply saying they shouldn’t forget the types of movies they used to make which were still great and if they can make movies like that again, I don’t see why not.

I understand your reservations, I really do, I just don’t really think it’s as bad as you think it is.

What were the loose ends at the end of Monster’s Inc.? The bad guys are arrested/exiled, Mike and Sully make up, Boo is returned to the human world, and Sully even gets to see her again. There really wasn’t much more to it than that.

Still, it’s a lot closer than it should be, in my opinion.

If the Monsters Inc. info is true, that would make 3 out their next five films, sequels.

Toy Story III,
Cars II
Monsters, Inc. II

against:

Newt
The Bear And The Bow

I wasn’t all that concerned when Toy Story III was announced. A little bit when Cars II was, but if the latest info is true, then for the first time, Pixar’s slate will be more than half made up of sequels.

It’s not just that we’ve seen these worlds before, it’s just that eventually you run out of significant things to say about them. I thought at least with Toy Story III, the inevitable dealing with the equivalent of toy “death” (being discarded) would probably provide final closure to these characters, and with Cars II, the chance to take the concept and finally elevate it to the level of the other Pixar films, so I least thought I understood the reasons for them, but with Monster’s Inc. here we have characters who have gone through a complete arc in a story that was more than successful enough to satisfy and a happy ending with no loose ends. Again, if true, I don’t see any reason (from a film fan’s perspective) to want to go back again, that is, of course, aside from the desire simply to have more for the sake of having it.

Knowing Pixar’s system, every one will still be a worthwhile exercise, but they made the mistake of spoiling us with the last set of films, which became ever more mature in theme and story. Toy Story’s universe could pull off that level of newfound maturity. Cars II? Not as likely. Monster’s Inc. II, would similarly be hard pressed to advance the ball to where Pixar has been going to lately.

I could understand if it was only one out of four films that was a sequel, but I just can’t get as excited for these as I was when the concepts were both good and fresh.

I don’t even think Dreamwork’s slate has as many sequels or based-on-previous films in production, by percentage. One of the differences between the two studios was that Pixar had built a name not only on quality, but on originality.

The thing about Pixar is that they create these worlds, these amazingly unique worlds and then they tell you a story which is great, but we all know that that story hasn’t fully explored that world because the stories are always small intimate stories (which I’ve nothing against and I’m not begrudging them for it, it’s one of the things I love about Pixar).

With Toy Story, it was this idea of what it would be like to be a Toy, in Monsters Inc, they created a whole new world of Monsters. They develop these worlds that hold so much potential that it’s kind of a shame that that potential is wasted on single films. I loved Monsters Inc and as a whole, I think the story is just amazing and were there no more stories to take place in that world, I’d be fine with that because I liked how it played out. But with it’s potential, I can see why they’d want to go back to it.

You’re actually making my point for me.

If Pixar can sell you on any idea, why settle for going back to places you’ve already been? Even if they’re great (and their process makes it a good bet that they’ll at least be good) isn’t it more refreshing to see characters and places you haven’t been yet?

If they announced after Finding Nemo that the next four films would be sequels, where do you think all the great stories you were once skeptical of, but now admire, would have ended up? The waste basket. Spending five years on a film takes a lot of resources, and you can’t spend it twice, so why keep going back to the well when you can continue to blaze a trail forward and mature as a studio?

Again, it’s not that I’m doubting any of these sequels will be good, I’m beginning to question whether the drive to push forward towards a more varied and diverse studio is still there or not. Pixar’s biggest attraction to me has always been the variety. Sequels diminish that.

Remember, Pixar has done something not many are capable of, they’ve done a sequel to a great movie that not only was as good as said movie, but, some say, was actually better.

Frankly, Pixar told me they were going to make a movie about fish and I was skeptical, only to come out of the cinema with tears in my eyes.

Pixar told me they were going to do a film about a rat and I was skeptical, I just re-watched that film for the nth time yesterday.

Pixar told me they were going to do a post apocalyptic movie about a robot who teaches other robots to love and teaches humans the meaning of life… and the first half of it will be like a silent movie. We all know how that turned out.

Right now, Pixar can sell me anything and you can bet I’ll be off to watch it. Old man ties balloons to his house and takes off? Sure, why the hell not.

Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE Pixar; in particular, their creativity and originality in their storyline. This is their differentiation (especially in this day and age where Tom Dick and Harry are rebooting the same idea). However, if Pixar does start milking the cashcow like everyone else is, I fear it will travel the same path as Shrek has.. or Terminator… or… or… or… Star Wars (OMG!!!)

I just kinda hope they don’t bring back Boo, I think the ending to the first Monsters Inc was perfect, no need to ruin it.

Of all the announcements of film projects Pixar has ever come out with – Old men in helium lifted homes, rat chefs, dysfunctional superhero families, Post-apocolyptic sci-fi robot love stories, it’s the announcements of sequels that has me most concerned.

Very well put. Having said that, give me more Incredibles!
I actually thought The Incredibles would have made a great TV series.

First, as one critic I read once said, there are films we as fans want to see, and then there are the films we REALLY want. In our heads, we think we want sequels to movies we love, but I would argue that more often than not this desire is not based on some aspect about the original that left them unfulfilled, or thought that something needed to be more fully explored, but rather it is a desire for more for the sake of having more. Thankfully, when Pixar produced it’s only sequel, it made sure there was something left to explore, which gives hope where other studios would quickly just thoughtlessly dish out a repeat – hopefully the sequels on slate will be made for the right reasons and that Pixar isn’t letting up on the gas pedal.

However, the films we really want, deep down, are the ones whose universes we haven’t explored at all yet. The human imagination is vast, yet the temptation to repeat ones self is huge because it’s an easier path.

I used to be one of the large numbers of Pixar fans who spoke of their desire to see that most desired of sequels, “The Inredibles”, but have since reneged on that desire, after seeing the studio push themselves to height after height since. I’ve been to the universe the Incredibles gave us, and I loved it, but I’d rather be surprised now with ideas I don’t even know I like yet because they haven’t been imagined.

It’s a lesson learned in “Ratatouille” when Anton Ego joyfully exclaims: “Surprise me!”. It would be a pity if Pixar forgot the lesson they themselves evoked so well in that film, which is still in my top two favorites in their library.