love your videos, and i loved the concept for this one as i agree with it. that said, i think your voice over was a lot different in this video, it seemed like a robot was talking or you were reading a script. each. word. seemed. to. have. a. pause. it also felt like it lacked emotion but i know you actually meant what was said. im not trying to be a dick if it comes off harsh, just some constructive criticism... unless it was intentional. seemed noticeable to me, take it or leave it. love you buddy keep up the good content! can't wait for the next one
Thanks for the criticism. I was sorta trying out something new with the way I talked in this video. I kinda liked it, but I'm open to going back to things as usual or going to somewhere in between. I'm not really attached to the way I talk in any of these videos haha.
Good job experimenting. You get better and find your voice by practising. I agree with Shrimp Man though. It didn't work that great this time. But keep at it! Good video.
Liam Eady Bread Mafia, the story of a turkey sub, a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich, a piece if naan bread, and a croissant, as they come together, despite their difference to defeat their sworn enemy, the sweets Yakuza, who are holding the Bread King [of an indiscriminate type of bread for mass appeal] for, one BILLION dollars. 2 sky 2 plan, the heroic tale of a man sent back to a time when Earth was being made, where he has to create the sky itself, however in the process makes two versions, who have a giant Mecha battle for some reason. Lonely Woman who Loves eating Turtles [The gritty reboot of the original Saturday morning sit-com] which focuses on one woman's depression in a world where turtles are illegal to eat, and her desire for one last turtle. Spoilers, she does end up in prison.
I find myself agreeing with you about 90% of the way. The only Pixar sequels that I think as of yet have been warranted are Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 because those are the only ones that continue the narrative in a logical and satisfactory manner. Toy Story pushes the idea of Woody fearing being replaced by having him confront the idea that one day all of Andy's toys including himself will no longer be needed by Andy. Toy Story 3 has Woody and the gang finally confronting the inevitable as Andy is about to move out for college. The thematic progression of the story in the Toy Story trilogy makes sense and I enjoy it a lot. On the other hand, I got nothing out of Cars 2, Cars 3, Monster's University, or Finding Dory. Those do not feel like a natural progression or exploration of the story and feel totally unwarranted. The Toy Story trilogy in all honesty seems more like an exception to the rule for Pixar sequels. However, I'm tentatively excited (if a bit wary) for Toy Story 4 and The Incredibles 2. Toy Story 4's plot (from what little we've been told) seems a bit spotty on paper, but the first three films have been so good that I'm willing to give the idea a chance. The Incredibles 2 is a film that I believe could potentially explore the universe more. The end of the first film implies that superheroes have once again been reinstated by the government and I think that a lot of the drama that could come from that is something that would be interesting to explore because honestly learning about the downfall of the supers was one of my favorite parts of the first Incredibles. I do agree that Pixar (and also Disney) has far too many sequels on the horizon. Like, I'm excited guys but I'd like some new stories please. I mean, come on now... (I would like to see how that last idea plans out. What would the mafia want with bread... the conspiracy thickens...)
I was really into toy story two, but the third movie just didn't accomplish that much for me. Thematically, it felt like a rehash of the second movie. Again, Woody deals with his mortality, and again, he embraces pleasure in the here and now over the mysterious afterlife attic.
3 definitely treads similar waters as 2, but the difference for me is that 2 has Woody contemplating being unwanted by Andy and 3 has Woody confronting being unwanted by Andy after he has grown up. It's a subtle, but important distinction. I can understand why some people (yourself included) probably didn't enjoy the third one as much. It is very similar to the second one in the sense that they both confront the idea of total obsolescence, when a toy no longer has a purpose to fulfill to their owner, and it covers a lot of the same ideas. I personally don't mind this though as I think it's interesting how the two films approach what is essentially the same conflict from a before point-of-view, and a present/after-the-fact point-of-view.
Finding Dory is one of the worst movies I've ever seen getting 90+% on Rotten Tomatoes. To me it is nowhere near a 90% score, and one thing I never see people mention is how it treated fish like toys, making kids think their pet goldfish could survive flopping around on land or splashing around in a public fountain, or held in small containers of water. The film also treats disabilities as the butt of many jokes, in a way I'd honestly call 'mean-spirited'. (the dumb seal and the alpha seal on the rock, or the clumsy Beluga). It also grossly misrepresents how a Beluga's locomotion works. In the first film, you might learn something about fish from watching it. They spend most of their time doing fish things in deep water. But in the sequel they spend a majority of time flopping around on dry land, or jumping from one receptacle to another.
I think the incredibles have more stories to tell (especially because they set up one in the first movie) but the other films such as toy story 3 and finding Nemo didn’t need one
I dunno. I kind of doubt the final scene really introduced new problems to resolve. The movie started with the superheroes in their element where there was lots of action and supervillains to fight, and the ending restored that. The main conflict was with Bob's damaged relationship with the public and Buddy, not with the random supervillains.
Really? You think toy story 3 was unnecesary? A child that grew up and now the toys we know and love have to find a new life purpose or die as the useless pieces of plastic they are? I would be offended if Pixar wouldn't end the franchise
Hey guys, I say at the end of this video that I would be releasing a video this Friday, but I won't be able to to do that because of unforeseen circumstances. The video should be out next Friday. Sorry 'bout that.
BLUE FIRE Harold Sandahl This is exactly what Brad Bird said: "I thought about aging everybody, the way everybody does, and then I thought, 'No, that sucks.' [Laughs] So, that's about as deep as it went." And I trust Bird and I did not want to see the characters aged since always
Bonnie Knight I'll be happy if Incredibles 2 is a very good, really engaging and fun movie, even if inferior and not brilliant as the first, it does not mean that it is a failure. And re-encounter these compelling, great characters that we love, seeing new adventures of them, even if the movie only had this quality, and I believe that it will have far more qualities, it will already have satisfied my desires. I never could accept The Incredibles only having one movie. I am specially fascinated with the kids' characters, Violet and Dash, because I love children or teenage super-heroes since always, being a super-hero at this age is so thrilling, cool and relatable. And we will get new comics of Incredibles and I'm looking forward to read everything with new adventures of The Incredibles, specially the HQ Heroes At Home, starring Dash and Violet casually doing super-hero work in a store! So far, the movie is being praised as a worthy, cool, widly entertaining, fun and trilling sequel that is truly rewarding and the best Pixar sequel after Toy Story sequels. And fanfictions will proliferate also. And I want Incredibles 3 soon!
I must respectfully disagree. To the first point; I don't believe absolute originality is necessary for a film to be considered good, and I think expecting otherwise is ludicrous. The fact that a sequel takes place in the SAME WORLD as the previous film should mean nothing. Do you complain when the next episode of a TV show is in the same location? With the same characters? Do you complain when the same band creates a new album with the same type of instruments? Obviously not. Creating a follow up piece of art is a fine thing to do, as long as it's interesting. Which leads to your second point; there's no reason for these prequels to exist? I think anyone who grew up with the Toy Story franchise would disgaree. That entire trilogy follows Andy as he matures from a child to a college student, and his growth follows the age of the audience who watched the first film. Each installment allows for an exploration of deeper themes that the previous film couldn't have/didn't need to focus on. Did Cars 2 need to exist? Probably not. But you can't deny that the plot of Cars 2 is vastly more complex than the original, which I assume mirrors the development of it's primary audience members. Regardless, a sequel/prequel is justified in its existence IF the characters are compelling and the plot is engaging. Some Pixar films may not meet those standards, but to suggest ALL of them don't is dismissive and way too generalizing.
I’m gonna go through this comment pretty closely. I’m not trying to pick on you here, it was a good comment. I just think that some of the points you’re raising are probably shared by a good number of people. “I don't believe absolute originality is necessary for a film to be considered good, and I think expecting otherwise is ludicrous” I agree. I said on multiple occasions that I don’t think all Pixar sequels are bad. My purpose wasn’t to make absolute statements about the quality of Pixar sequels, it was to say that I think they ought to not make more of them if they want to make the best films possible. “The fact that a sequel takes place in the SAME WORLD as the previous film should mean nothing. Do you complain when the next episode of a TV show is in the same location?” No, I don’t think that sequels are, de facto, all bad. Nor do I think that shows have to change their environments every five seconds. What I do think is that Pixar, specifically, shouldn’t make sequels. That’s because a huge amount of the enjoyment I get from these films is the wonder and excitement I get from seeing a new, creative, beautifully rendered world. That joy is much less pronounced when I see that a new film shares a huge number of aesthetic commonalities with an old one. “There's no reason for these prequels to exist? I think anyone who grew up with the Toy Story franchise would disgaree.” I actually went to college the same year Andy from Toy Story did. These films are directly targeted at people my age, and, uhh, I disagree. “Each installment allows for an exploration of deeper themes that the previous film couldn't have/didn't need to focus on.” While I agree that Toy Story Two touched on deeper, more complex themes than the original toy story did, I don’t think Toy Story 3 added much to the equation. I’m not going to fully substantiate that belief since it would take too long. But it’s fine if you disagree with me here. The point wasn’t that no Pixar sequel was vital or interesting, it was that broadly speaking, they don’t serve as great a purpose as original Pixar movies do. “Did Cars 2 need to exist? Probably not. But you can't deny that the plot of Cars 2 is vastly more complex than the original” Is that right? I’m not saying you’re wrong with this, just that I’ve sorta blocked out Cars 2 from my memory. It doesn’t seem more thematically rich than the original? It seems like a bucket of actual garbage, but maybe I should revisit it? In your conclusion, you restate your introduction, so that’s about all I have to respond with. Thanks for watching and giving this so much thought!
Correction. I was actually 15 years old when toy story 3 was made. I still think my point there stands, though. I grew up with the films, is the idea. I wonder how old people generally think I am.
Big Joel Well, I was 18 when Toy Story 3 came out, so roughly the same age as Andy, give or take a year, and I agree with Daniel here. Although I will add my own two cents: so far, the Toy Story sequels seem to be the exception that confirms the rule in the case of whether Pixar sequels/prequels are good or bad. To list all of them: Cars 2: piss-poor movie that failed to add anything to an already crappy film and stands as Pixar's all time low(imo). Cars 3: Pixar pulling up their socks and showing that the Cars franchise is worth a damn after all. I guess in the grand scheme of things, all 3 movies never should have happened, but this shows that even out of something like Cars, You can make something decent. Finding Dory: an entertaining story by itself, but a failure of a sequel. I watched Finding Nemo a lot as I was a kid, and I was entertained with the story of Marlin, Not Dory. Dory for me was the sidekick comic relief, and even though she had her moments, never really managed to come out of that role. So when a Nemo sequel was announced and that it would focus on Dory, all I could think of was: "Why?". I saw, and still don't see, any reason why Dory in particular should be the centrepiece of a sequel. Actually, come to think of it, they did that with Cars 2 too. Maybe it's a trend at this point. A trend Pixar needs to bury in the ground fast. Monsters University: now I may be a little bias on this one, because its release closely mirrors the time when I was studying for my college application(or rather, the high-school diploma that would allow me to get into college). And contrary to most people, I actually enjoyed this film as a stand-alone Story. One thing I will agree on however, is that there was no point in showing Sully and Mike's origin story. Everyone who grew up watching Monsters Inc. would have rather had a sequel that expanded on the last 5 minutes of the movie(You know you want it). We can see a trend with these universe expansions: they don't really add anything to the narrative of the originals. And that's where Toy Story 2 and 3 break the mold for me. Toy Story's original premise is hilariously unique compared to most of their movies(not to say none of them see unique, just that Toy Story's was more), and I can confidently say that the first film didn't, and simply couldn't encompass all the aspects of that premise. The Toy Story sequels are there to see to that premise. In 2, Woody learns he's part of something bigger, and can achieve some kind of immortality, at the cost of the love of a single child. To contrast that, we see Buzz learning he's also part of something bigger, and we see the two characters deal with their similar situations in different and conflicting ways. In 3, we see Andy, the kid that has been evolving around all of the main group's lives, grow up and mature, to the point that he doesn't his toys anymore. And this throws out all of the morals of the second movie out the window, or rather deals with them at the extreme: do the toys stay faithful to Andy in the attic, or do they move on? I think the movie deals with the theme excellently, and most importantly, brings a feeling of closure to the whole series. The Toy Story franchise had a beginning, middle and end. That's why I was thoroughly displeased when they announced a fourth movie, which to me has no point in existing and is only a cash-grab, contrary to 2 and 3. And this brings me to The Incredibles 2. The first movie was amazing, as anyone can, will and should agree. And it had a good self-contained story, with just a little element of mystery added to the mix: Jack-Jack's powers. I, like a lot of fans, have been screaming for a sequel for years, and practically went through the roof when it was finally announced. But I mellowed out in time, and sat to ponder: was that sequel really necessary? In a narrative sense, no. The first film came and gone, leaving practically no loose threads behind it. But, if the quality of the movie stands at least as good as the first, then I won't complain about that movie being released, and will enjoy it. This took ay longer than I thought it would, hope you have a good read if you happen to read this.
I definitely agree that toy story 2 and 3 added more to the universe than did any other Pixar sequel. More than that, they were just more vital films on their own. And I agree that even though Incredibles 2 doesn't feel necessary, if it's good, it's good. I can't complain if it gives us new things to look at and a new, good story. This was a good read, by the way!
To me, when a sequel or reboot happens, there must be a twist involved, or an unsolved question must be answered. I’ll go over the sequels and what questions they answer or their twist Toy Story 2: What are Woody’s origins? Toy Story 3: What happens when Andy grows up? Cars 2: ...that didn’t need to happen in the first place Cars 3: What happens when the new and modern generation comes in? Incredibles 2: Looks like the question is “What about Jack Jack?” Finding Dory: What happened to Dory’s parents?
Wade Wilson In Incredibles 2, the question is: how is the family's life and their personalities now that they embraced being super-heroes, and the implications of that?
About Toy Story 2, when I was little I didn't even know there was a movie before that, so the second one was my first Toy Story movie. I don't see Toy Story 2 as a sequel. To me it's just a Toy Story movie, my favourite one of all of them.
I am going to disagree with you on one point that I think is the basis of your argument and is something incredibly subjective. I disagree with you that Pixar should not make sequels. Your argument is correct. The stories that Pixar tells are incredible in that nothing goes to waste. They are self-contained and complete the narrative that they seek to tell. And if you are watching only for the story, then that is all you really need. But some of us don't watch just for the story. I know, personally, if I can't relate or connect to the characters than the story moves me less. If I think the main character acts out of character, as I see their character, then I dislike the story less even if others can tell me how they did act in character. I think of the book Wicked in this case as I found it boring and uninteresting where the book club I was with found it engaging and thought-provoking. Sometimes I want a sequel not to continue the story, but rather because I want to spend more time with the characters that they created. Let's take the Incredibles II. I too am disappointed, but probably not for the same reason you are. You are disappointed because they are making a sequel. I am disappointed because it appears that the sequel takes place shortly after the first one ended. I am not interested in that part. I want the characters to confront something that may force them to challenge the core of the character. I want the Par family to deal with separation, such as Violet going to college or Dash taking up crime. It is the same story again, something threatening to break up the family, but this time it would be the kids rather than the adults. I agree that a lot of sequels are shameless cash grabs. But I would have been fine with a Wall-E sequel to see how he and Eve react to the changing environment if they didn't have the wrap up in still images at the end. And often, I don't need a full movie. Something that shows that the characters I spend 90 minutes getting to know and care about continue to live after this tale is complete is often enough for me. So I think a sequel needs to be judged by how much it was required for the characters. Toy Story 2 was good and changed and grew the characters. I remember a lot about that movie. Toy Story 3 did not and was less good. I only really remember the end and that was because of the connection I felt with the characters more than anything else. So really, I am not excited for every Pixar sequel out there. I am only excited if I care about the character enough that I want to continue to experience their life. If I don't, then I would much rather that they would spend that time creating one that I would want to be with instead.
Harold Sandahl I liked that The Incredibles 2 takes place right after the first. I like to re-encounter characters exactly in the point when they left off, and developed them from there. Of course, it is not a rule that must be set in stone (Toy Story 3 is great), but I generally prefer sequels this way. I respect you, but I am not disappointed that the sequel will be right after the first. Instead, I could not be happier that it is this way. And I trust Brad Bird's work.
Harold Sandahl I would like to see Violet's character with more screen time in Incredibles 2, know more about her and how is the family's life, and Violet's personality specially, now that the family works as super-heroes. After the ending of the first, I always wanted to know how is their life and combat to crime now that that they are back. How all of them react to the change of their lives that happened in the first movie, I want to know.
I agree that I would've preferred a "time skip" for the Incredibles 2. Massively disappointed that Jack-Jack was still an infant just for one example. I would've loved to see what power he actually ended up developing, and his personality too. The only one who really seemed to beef up was Dash, and that honestly made me proud. Wonder if he got into some major physical sports like football or something. I know that buff athletic physique anywhere. That, and if the movie is going into the direction I think it is "bumbling husband left with the kids while wife goes out to life of luxury," then this... yeah, this is gonna be bad.
rhonda howard Honestly, I am happy that they didn't do the time loop. I like to see the evolution of the children right after movie. Brad Bird said that he tought of doing a time jump, but ultimately said "I am not interested in seeing a college-age Jack, for example, and if we aged the characters, we would lose the dynamics of them that we established in the first movie."
Harold Sandahl Brad Bird has said in interviews that he considerd doing the time jump, but ultimately has simply no interest in seeing the characters years after the first movie.
I totally feel you in this regard. But not with Toy Story and Incredibles. Sure they both had plots that fully convey characters as they are and become. But there was and is still a lot interesting narratives that can come from where they end up. Toy Story makes sense to have sequels because the Toys have to deal with Andy growing up. Incredibles makes sense since while the family works together now, Jack Jack's new found powers can really alter their family dynamic as well as how Heroes are still illegal at the end. I'm all for new aesthetic but I'm also totally down for further narratives. i swear if I see another Cars or Planes movie though I'mma riot haha
1 and 2 are on par in my opinion. 2 introduces more characters with relevance and an interesting new plot. 3 wasnt as good but good enough to watch multiple times without getting bored. surprised theres a 4th one but.. *cough* money *cough*
This is really well-argued and for the most part, I agree. I offer a counterpoint: Toy Story 3 is not just pretty good it's a masterpiece and the best Toy Story movie. Had they not made it, it would have been a huge loss. It's true that animators can do anything and don't have to be limited to anything, but so does any type of artist. Having a completely original concept means nothing if they don't have the talent to pull it off. And Pixar are at their best when they have a story they love and the story they love works. I'm excited for Incredibles 2 because I love those characters enough to watch one more movie with them. I dare say it's necessary because every character except maybe Bob has so much promise that was not fulfilled in the first.
Oh, another counterargument: I think bringing up Pixar's economic storytelling style as an argument against them making sequels does a disservice to the diversity of stories they tell. Ratatouille, for example, is a self-contained story that would not lend itself to a sequel. And if they greenlit one, I would be sure that Pixar has gone insane. But that's a story where the characters end goal is to lead satisfying happy lives without expecting further conflict. This is different from the characters of Toy Story, whose goal is constantly to remain innocent, which is a goal that can never be fully achieved. And then there is Incredibles, where some of the characters, in pursuit of adventure and excitement, leave a comfortable life of minor conflict, and enter a much less innocent world. The Incredibles is a perfect movie, but it is not one that said everything you could about it's characters. At least, not from my point of view.
It's an interesting point. I'll agree to an extent. I just think there is room for continuing adventures of characters sometimes. Incredibles has a transition ending, not a wrap-up. The family has become active crime-fighters; their baby has powers yet to be fully explored; the world is changing; supervillains are back and superheroes are returning to meet the threat. The family's arcs have been resolved in the individual movie, but it's a start of something bigger. It might have to do with the film being based on the Fantastic Four comic book series, which is formatted with nesting arcs so that stuff gets resolved in individual books and sets of books but is always advancing onward. It's like Iron Man more or less resolving the arcs introduced in the story and then ending with the transition to a new world where Tony is open about being a superhero, presumably isn't willing to stop, and is approached by Nick Fury to tell him he's transitioned to the greater world. They did not know they would necessarily jumpstart the MCU, so Iron Man is self-contained, but it has the superhero transitional ending inviting a sequel. Not all of the MCU films are great, but it made sense that there would be a continuation off of Iron Man.
Pixar should hire Dan Harmon to make that movie about a guy that wants to eat shit but the government is telling him to stop. That does deserve further exploration.
The real trick with Pixar sequels is that Toy Story 2 was planned to be released straight-to-VHS due to a sequel being commissioned by Disney, but they realized that what they made was so good it should be in theaters. That felt like a genuine decision that even they were surprised by and it happened because the movie was great. It was a shock. If a good Pixar sequel outside of the Toy Story franchise ever exists, I’ll be equally as surprised as they were when they made Toy Story 2. Pixar sequels outside of Toy Story DO feel like straight-to-DVD movies that come to theaters. It’s kind of sad.
I don't think most pixar movies are aesthetically original in the first place. they all have that same sort of style that most modern kids movies have. Also I would really like to watch the lonely woman who likes eating turtles movie.
Counter points: 1. If there ever was a Pixar movie that was set up for a sequel then it was The Incredibles. The first movie was a lot like an origin story and there was still a lot to explore. 2. Toy Story 2 and 3.
Sequels work because we care about the characters from the get go and are excited about what's going on with them since we last saw them. If the kids around you in the theater were getting super pumped, that's the reason. An original movie trailer wouldn't produce excitement of the same level. At the end of the day, I want my kids to enjoy the film. If it has them excited and emotionally invested the whole way through because of the familiar faces, then it's serving its purpose. After all, these movies are meant to be enjoyed. And what is enjoyable to some (new settings) might seem boring to others (characters you don't know or care about yet).
The point about closing off new creative possibilities is something I've never thought about but it's so true. For the same reason something like Coco or Luca likely won't strike you with the same aww at how gorgeous their worlds are a second time on second viewing a sequel wouldn't do that either and it's kind of sad.
Toy Story 2: Better than the original Toy Story 3: Arguably even better Cars 2: The worst Pixar movie, but still better than most other animated films Cars 3: A vast improvement over 2 Monsters University: Not better than the original, but just as interesting and fun Finding Dory: Better than the original Incredibles 2: Just as good as the original, arguably even better Honestly? I feel the opposite, let Pixar make as many sequels as they want. They clearly know how to make good sequels so I see no reason to let them stop. I'd personally like to see a continuation of Inside Out or Wall-E, both feel like they have more stories to tell. Also: "I think those children were wrong to be happy"... That's really petty you know.
wh holy SHIT did you really just say you don't think animation should have sequels?? like, period?? look my dude i'm every bit as tired of the pixar sequels as everyone else but this Hot Take is just.... Bad..... Though i'd also say re: the second point- you're mostly right, but I do feel that finding dory does warrant its own existence in a way: finding nemo has a minor thing in which two out of its three main characters have a disability of some kind, but then they...never... really.......say anything about it... I think finding dory being more of an exploration of that aspect makes it an interesting film that justified its own existence in that regard.
I strongly believe Pixar’s movies are made to tell one story in a contained world with each character completing their arc within said movie. Buzz’s main character arc and biggest reason he was made was “you are a toy”. The point is even made more clear when they meet up with a “fresh” Buzz lightyear in 2 and when they re-set him in 3. In toy story 4 I’m sure they’ll find a way to give us a delusional buzz yet again.
The notion of characters needing to need more story seems like an arbitrary thing to appeal to though. No new character needs a new story and more than an old character, until you create an arc for them. There's no reason why an OG character can't have new expanded arcs beyond their original. When that arc is bad, it does risk harming the original story in my opinion, but I also think limiting their existence to a single story arc that worked is only as necessary as the writers choose to make it.
Almost some of these sequels are about the sidekick characters For example- Cars 2 - Mater Monsters University - Mike Finding Dory - Dory Incredibles 2 - Elastigirl
Yes yes yes. As someone who loves and studies animation this is what I've been telling people for ages. Every hope I've had for a Pixar sequel has been dashed. As you said, Toy Story 2 and maybe 3 are exceptions. The specific trend of Pixar which you touched on is to use the sequel to explore a secondary character, a character that was written to BE a supporting character, into a main character. And Coco is the best Pixar movie in years.
I'm glad Toy Story 2 and 3 exist. Also if Toy Story 3 didn't exist, everybody would always be wondering what happened to the toys after Andy grew up. I was honestly thinking about that a little before 3 even came out after Stinky Pete brought up Andy going to college in Toy Story 2. Now Toy Story 4 and every other Pixar sequel was unneeded though.
Normally I enjoy Pixar sequels but I heard there’s going to be a Toy Story 4.. The third one had a perfect ending. I really do not want a 4th and a 5th and so on.
I mostly agree in the sense that I also do not like Pixar sequels and no longer want to support them, but I disagree that animated sequels SHOULDN'T exist. Toy Story 2 is a fantastic case for how a sequel can hold its own (and even surpass) the original (Not Toy Story 3, though). And what is so incredible about Toy Story 2 is that Disney pushed Pixar into making it, gave them a short budget and a short time frame for a straight to DVD release, and then backed them into a corner when they decided they wanted it to be a feature for theatrical release instead. Disney could do all this because of their early contract with Pixar. So Lasseter and Pixar rewrote the film entirely and challenged themselves to create a story that EXPANDED the world and psychosis of toys. They gave Woody room to grow on his search for his identity, and to learn from the new characters they introduced. Toy Story 2 may be full of fun, but I found the emotional beats in that film all the more compelling than the 1st film. I will always love the original Toy Story and proclaim that it is the most original animated film of our generation, but Toy Story 2 is a worthy sequel and only proves to me that I should expect better from Pixar when they keep trying to sell me on these back to back sequels. There is no excuse to cheaply rehash very original films and market them as a franchise that never ruffles the feathers of their characters or audience. This 100% feels like the corporate influence of Disney, and THAT is what makes me very sad when I sit in a theatre and watch The Incredibles 2.
I pretty much whole-heartedly agree with the sentiment of this video. The only exceptions however I think are Toy Story 2 and Cars 3. The only reason I think those sequels are justified is because there was more life left in the concept of living toys and talking race cars. Personification is a more powerful and interesting concept... I mean if there was anything that drove me to sit through fresh hell that was Sausage Party to the end, it was the concept of the personification of food and the horrifying existential metaphor that managed to clumsily come out of it. Something like Finding Nemo doesn't have anything aesthetically or narratively left to give, and more importantly, neither does the fish metaphor. The thing unique to Toy Story and Cars is that the stories were metaphors for a human experience realized through the concepts of common personification. Kids really do sometimes project their feelings onto their toys and talk to them like friends... lonely adults really do refer to their precious collector classic cars as if they were alive and could hear them. For these reasons, these metaphors have more dynamic utility in story telling than a concept based on a singular notion like "fish out of water", or "up in the air", or "corporate monster"... concepts based on metaphors that have one intended meaning that can be plugged into a dramatic narrative. Cars 2 was garbage for one reason more than any other - more so than a meandering nonsensical plot that thrived on making the most outlandish genre trappings work within the concept of living vehicles, it was the separation of the concept from the human experience. Cars 3 brought it back, and I would argue in a way that far outshone the original Cars movie while serving as a relevant counterpart to that original story. Toy Story 2 did the same thing. It used the same concept the first movie used to explore themes of "cruelty to those who are different" to explore themes of fatalism... that is definitely upping the stakes and making good use of the metaphor. Toys are used to express our deeper emotions such as cruelty (Toy Story), and they break, get lost, and might be better off sealing themselves away in a safe space away from harm and heartache (Toy Story 2) - both great themes to explore with the concept. Cars take you through life too fast to enjoy the little things (Cars), and they break down and get junked out and replaced (Cars 3). These sequels were relevant to the unique concept and upped the stakes. That's why The Incredibles 2, Finding Dory, Monsters University, and Toy Story 3 really ran out of steam. The concepts had nothing left to improve on. The first Incredibles used the concept of a super hero family to the fullest. Finding Nemo used the concept of talking fish to its fullest. Toy Story 3 only chocked up to being a less concise version of Toy Story 2 with an alternate ending that kinda sorta vaguely followed up on the flip side to those themes. The metaphors in Monsters, Inc. are really only good for one narrative, and any sequels or prequels will either have to repeat the same message or find a way to separate it completely; which in the end gives it virtually no value in being attached to another movie because it's just the same aesthetic and characters in a completely different story in which they are hardly even the same characters and using the same setting isn't justified in the slightest... and that's energy that ought to be poured into a new concept with a new visual aesthetic and new characters and themes, where imagination and creative freedom can flourish.
For a high school honors diploma, I had to do a 45 minute presentation of my choice. While most students did something controversial or groundbreaking (such as stem cell research, chemicals in food, or impact of space exploration to name a few,) I decided to ask how Pixar changed the animation industry. (Thanks American school system!) From what I researched, Disney forced Pixar to make Toy Story 2 as a straight to DVD movie. Whenever Disney did this, they were training younger animators and giving them more experience before working on bigger projects. Pixar started working on Toy story 2 but decided it was too good to go straight to DVD, so they changed some released dates to allow space for Toy story 2 in theaters. (If anyone is wonder, Pixar has short films rather than terrible sequels to help new animators develop the skill and also play with the technology since they are the leaders in cgi.) Basically, with the release if Toy Story 2, Pixar could not oppose any sequels Disney proposed. There was going to be Monsters Inc 2: Lost in Scaridise, but John Lassetor said no. When Disney bought Pixar, Disney wanted Pixar to be the cash cow, so that's a big reason why Pixar is pumping out so many sequels. I strongly dislike this because the only sequels I like are the Toy Story movies, but I'm very opposed to the 4th movie. I thought Incredibles 2 was fantastic and I was shocked by how much I enjoyed it. I thought it would be like Finding Dory or Cars 3. I still wish there were more originals. Also, excellent point about the aesthetic. I had the honor to interview Danielle Feinberg from Pixar and she told me a lot about the animation and cgi technology. You don't notice a lot of things until it's not there, such as the steady movement of the clouds or a gust of wind. I felt like Finding Dory wasn't as good visually in terms of story telling but I couldn't figure out why until you mentioned it.
To me, the Toy Story trilogy is the only exception. Each film explores questions about the world of toys, and in the end brings things full circle with Bonnie as their new owner. Now what I consider to be worse than sequels are live action remakes! Unlike sequels, they are just redoing everything step by step! Sure a bad sequel may ruin the cannon of the film, but a live action remake is pointless.
I would have to agree with you on a few points in here that most Pixar sequels aren't warranted as their original counterparts. The only films that I feel like that are warranted for a sequel are Toy Story 2, Cars 2, and Cars 3. Even though that the cars sequels may be trash, they actually do serve purpose for a sequel than most other Pixar sequels that has been released. The reason why I do feel like that they're warranted is because they do actually expanded the universe and themes of their own movie and even continuing the story even further. Even though that Toy Story 3 may be a great movie, It's actually not a good as sequel but great as a solid movie. In Toy Story 2, Woody has learned about his backstory and on how toys can't last forever. In Toy Story 3 however, nothing is ever changed. It actually uses the same themes as Toy Story 2. It's even outstanding to me that Cars 2 and 3, a worse film than Toy Story 3 had actually added more depth to their own universe than Toy Story 3. With the new Toy Story 4 coming soon this summer, the trailer reveals that It uses some of the same themes from Toy Story 2 and 3 in which we don't exactly know until It's released, but It actually expands the universe and story in some way better than Toy Story 3 that Toys can at least be created by anything with a face characteristic that doesn't have a toy soul and with Little Bo Peep having an entirely new character arc as an original character unlike that Toy Story 3 had added no new character arc to Its original characters.
I agree with everything you said, but the Incredibles ended on a cliff hanger and they are done of my favorite super heroes because they exist in a world outside of Marvel and they're likable.
I never thought about it that way… But you’re so right that every decision in a Pixar film is deliberate so a sequel has nothing new or interesting to bring to the table and thus isn’t really worth anyone’s time. It’s just so unnecessary
Toy Story 1-3? I loved them. Each film came out at a different point of my life, from childhood, to adolescence, to adulthood. I was in tears at the end of Toy Story 3... It felt complete. I refuse to watch the 4th film, however. TL:DR besides the first 3 Toy Story films, I agree with you.
Watch the 4th movie. Was an excellent nail in the coffin in the best way possible. Lots of heart and sets the characters on a path at the end that they really can't make any more films. I was gonna skip it too, it seemed unnecessary, but it's a perfect sendoff.
I love the Toy Story sequels, because I feel the whole trilogy (at the time of this comment's writing) works just in terms of Woody and his growth from an asshole to a real leader. And, I get some feels from Cars 3 and a chuckle from McQueen and his dad jokes. But for the rest, I agree. Pixar doesn't write stories that need sequels, and even the Toy Story movies weren't strictly speaking necessary. Woody's transformation from bossy jerk to chill good guy in the first original was all that was essential. If it wasn't for the fact that it's so rare to see that classic character arc continue in an upward momentum, (rather than stagnating or going back to square one for forced drama) then it's possible I wouldn't find the movies as satisfying.
I know this is an old video and so no one probably cares but I think it's important to point out that the context surrounding Toy Story 2 is dramatically different from literally all their other sequels. Toy Story 2 was being rushed out by Disney with a different creative team against Pixar's wishes. Pixar had no interest in sequels at the time as they had only made 2 other movies before that, but when Lasseter and the original team saw the direction Toy Story 2 was going down they were so upset and embarrassed they decided to take on the burden and make it themselves with a little over a year to revamp the story and fully animate it (which is obviously no time at all in animation), and I think that under those insane restraints and pressure they managed to pull through and make something that I think is at least narratively even more interesting than the first Toy Story, but whether or not you agree with that the shitty production process still separates TS2 from the cynical cash grabs of the other sequels imo
Observing the modern pixars, I usually think: "Wow they still got it!" but there's this lingering sensation that something more could be done and how the originals never left me with that feeling. For some strange reason I just didn't like everything about Inside Out but Coco was pretty awesome. Inside out felt pandering and a little emotionally manipulative, while still being alright in a lot of ways. Coco felt like a world filled with love and passion. I started to think maybe it was just me growing up and not understanding kids movies like I used to, but this video has made the answer a little more complicated for me. I think knowing there's more to it is a good thing so thank you.
Something I noticed about Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 is they both find a way to have a significant chunk of the movie have "Buzz Lightyear but he doesn't know he's a toy" which feels so indicative that the character was never made with anything else to explore past the first movie to the point they had to bring back his pre-development personality. Still like those movies, but you can tell they were stretched thin by the tight nature of the first movie.
Perhaps one could relate this to your other video on the recurring theme of obsolescence in Pixar's movies. In becoming obsolete, one is finding oneself in the wrong order. Consequently, one must enter chaos, the unknown, and eventually discover (or arguably create) a new order. As you mention, they have extremely tight and economical scripts, which is why they are able to finish this arc in the run time of one movie. What may be happening is that in selecting an old character, they are selecting the order of that character from the beginning of the first movie, as opposed to the end. What this effectively means is that they repeat the same character arc. This supports your points regarding the fact that the visual artistry becomes severely less imaginative, which is another way of emulating a new order. When reusing the same art style of the previous movie, with this art style not changing throughout the original, it is unclear to the viewer what order the character is actually in. Of course, Pixar can't make radical alterations to the artistic direction of the original movie in the sequel, which is one additional argument to support your case against Pixar sequels.
I actually have nothing against sequels or prequels, as long as the story is good, I'm fine with it. That's why I loved Finding Dory, in the first movie she was a character to laugh at, I mean she was great and all, but her mental problem wasn't really taken seriously. I think in Finding Dory, we get another side of the coin that we didn't get to explore before, which is the struggle Dory has to go through because of her mental health. Saying that disney sequels and prequels are just cash grabs is a very...generalized statement. The only sequels I've seen that are shitty from Pixar are Monsters University and Cars 2 (and let's be honest, Cars wasn't that great to begin with). Besides that, I really don't have much to complain about their continuations of stories.
Hmm, I would say that regardless of the quality of pixar sequels, they are cash grabs. Look at it this way, when the studio is deciding what movie to make, they have a choice between a gamble, a new creative project, or a sure thing, an established IP. By making the sequel, they are making the better economic decision, in most cases at least. That said, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with art having a financial motivation, so long as it's good art haha.
Big Joel By that logic, everything, even the good movies in hollywood, are cashgrabs, which might be true, but as long as they’re good stories I’ve got no problem with it xD
I agree with you. I mean the whole idea of a sequel is to explore the lore of that universe. And I think Finding Dory is still an enjoyable film even MU I didn't mind. Cars 2 while a mess I seriously can't hate on it like some do.
Do your damn research before making that accusation, if it was just as simple as making money MOST of their sequels wouldn't be as spaced out as they are. Andrew Stanton thought the story to finding nemo was finished, until he saw it in 3d years later and realized there were still questions about Dory that NEEDED to be answered. You can't just label them as cash grabs because it took Finding Dory 13 years to get made, and the Incredibles have around that number as well. Toy story 3 was years away from toy story 2. They never do a sequel unless they feel there's still more story to tell. The only reason cars got sequels is because it was apparently John lasseter's passion project, their the exception to the rule.
Big Joel So, you are saying that all sequels are cash grabs, not just Pixar. But every movie is a cash grab. Besides, using your logic of making a sequel as always a cash grab and, consequently, that we should never decide to make them in the first place, we would never have seen movies like The Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather Part II, Terminator 2, Aliens, Back To The Future Part II, Toy Story 2 and many other great movies. But I am just making a radical interpretation of your opinion, I know that you don't mean things at this level. Sadly, Francis Ford Coppola said once that he should not have made The Godfather Part II! Yes, part II, not only III. He said that he considers now that all story that really needed to be told was told in the first Godfather. This is sad
I agree with you especially after Finding Dory. The Incredibles was such a mature and powerful story and I already saw the family learn their most important lessons. Anything after just won't hold the same weight.
I don't agree with this reasoning. I think a sequel is always welcome if it has something to say as much as it's predecessor.. The Toy Stories are basically the only time in history it's fully worked for animated features. They had something logical to do and say that pushed that universe further. The Cars sequels, Monsters U, Dory, and Incredibles 2 aren't as strong because they explore themes and characters that have nothing to do with the original arc and focus on secondary "comic relief" characters that were not meant to hold the story on their own, but as a proper duo like in the first film. Toy Story is almost always about Woody's journey with some Buzz on the side. Cars just let Mater completely take over in Cars 2. Monsters U focuses on Mike Wazowski; Dory focuses on Dory; and Incredibles 2 focuses on Elastigirl. Those characters were not designed to lead a whole movie on their own and are meant as a foil to the main character. Don't get me wrong, I love sequels and I really liked all of the Pixar sequels, but the reason the Toy Story movies are so good is because they are very tightly focused and wisely know what they need to do to service it's most important character (ie: Woody). I bet you if they would have kept a strong story for Sulley, Marlin, Bob, and Lightning McQueen in their respective sequels they would have been much more tonally consistant and stronger movies as a whole; and people would not have hated Mater, Dory, Mike, and Helen, as they do now.
Congrats on being right! Incredibles 2 was a disappointment. As was Toy Story 4. They both felt like lazy cash grabs. Wish you weren't right, but you were!
Thank you so much! I try and talk to my friends about this but, they don't listen. I'm tired of hearing how amazing Disney is when their relying on our nostalgia to give them money. Thank you
I am okay with sequels and reboots... As long as these are good And I´m tired of that argument of "but the sequels aren't necessary"! Did you know some of the best movie sequels werent necessary in first place?(Terminator 2, Aliens, the godfather 2, Rocky 2, Toy Story 2, The Empire Strikes Back; originally Star wars was going to be a single movie before becoming a franchise... And I can continue)
I agree with this video. Whenever Pixar has an original idea like Coco, Up, and Ratatouille, the majority of them turn out to be beautifully animated, well voice acted, wonderfully directed and written, etc. The sequels (with an exception to the Toy Story films) always seem to do the same thing with less investment in the story and characters. I recently saw The Incredibles 2 and while it's a fun movie, it's not nearly as close to being as spectacular as the first one.
Boy were those children wrong to be happy. Also I had not considered it until this video but what is the point of Monster’s University? Besides only compounding on the dystopian nightmare world of the monsters (appropriate I guess, if still not a good creative decision) it so easily could have been Ghost’s University or Alien’s University, it is simply a vehicle for known intellectual property because the world is scary and it makes children want to see what they are familiar with before they are old enough to know that sequels generally suck
Good idea. Except for Toy Story 2 Pixar has changed their minds more then once about how one sequel should be made and it's all because Disney has made them close down Circle 7 animation. That's no excuse to change your mind more then once about a sequel if you ask me.
Finding Dory was very disappointing for me, and from the beginning I found it unnecessary. Incredibles II looks boring, but I'd love to be proven wrong. I didn't like Toy Story 3, but it was nice closure to the series. Toy Story 4 is stretching it and I doubt I'd like it. I haven't seen Cars 2 since I was younger, and I remember liking it. if I saw it again, I would probably like it in an ironic sense. I liked Cars 3, but it felt unnecessary. But it does feel like a nice closure to the series, since it came full circle. Monsters University stands out as one of the ones I actually really enjoyed. I have become more critical the more times I watched it, but I thought it was funny, had a good message, and set up Mike & Sully's friendship. I may be a bit biased though, since Monsters Inc is my favorite Pixar movie. Overall, Sequels are good... If done well. I'd not done well, they feel unneeded, boring, or like a cash grab. Who knows, maybe Incredibles 2 and Toy Story 4 will be good. I doubt it, but I'll still find some enjoyment out of the movies.
"In this country, you gotta make the bread first. Then when you get the bread, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women." - Breadmafia 2020
The only reason I think Incredibles 2 is warranted as opposed to cars or Nemo is the sheer world building the first did. There are so many questions I have that I think would be answered in Incredibles 2. Who is Honey? How did the supers get their powers? Do other designers make super suits? I actually think they could make a good little TV show out of it
Ever since it was released in 2004, almost everyone wanted a sequel to the Incredibles and were dissapointed when Cars hit the scene, since they just wanted to see more of the super hero family
Pixar writing challenge, fill in blanks with synopsis provided: "Once upon a time there was ___. Every day, ___. One day ___. Because of that, ___. Until finally ___." 1) sky man with sky plans 2) a lonely woman who just loves eating turtles 3) the mafia but with bread I agree with your points about the writing not warranting sequels, and it's with resentment that individual, creative potential is trashed for cash grabs. To a degree, I sort of blame our Overlord Disney's .. ugh.. control over talent/output, especially with Pixar having an amazing team and creative culture.
Not all of Pixar’s “creative” originals are great. Brave and the Good Dinosaur were original and they’re known as some of the worst Pixar movies of all time.
Hmm... what I think is that if the sequel doesn't have enough purpose before it, it shoudln't be made. Toy Story 2 and made because the first movie hinted at the eventuality that one day, Andy would grow up. The entire movie was Woody having to deal with that issue, and being presented with a chance to avoid ever having to make that choice. It was building on themes from the first without inventing them altogether. By contrast, Cars 2 had to completely create a story from scratch and even shift main characters to make it work. Toy Story 2 is often regarded as just as good if not better than the original (at least from the circles I'm in), and if we ignore the idea of sequels altogether, we'd never have gotten it. The problem is Pixar is choosing to make sequels that don't need to be made. Cars 3, while better than 2, wasn't necessary to the universe. Monster's Unversity was the prequel nobody wanted; most of us wanted a sequel if anything. But even still, the first Monster's Inc left off in a perfect place and didn't need to be followed up on. I agree with your video! I just feel that's a key point to make.
The lonely woman who just loves eating turtles is already a character on Over The Garden Wall, oddly enough. Voiced by Tim Curry no less. I'd watch the bread mafia movie though. OH! it could be called "Don of the Bread".
You're totally right, if you wanted to make an even stronger case for Pixar sequels similarities you could have made the same point as Adam/YMS made in his Toy Story 3 review. He essentially points out that TS3 is essentially a narrative and thematic copy of TS2.
I know there's a chance that I could be horribly wrong since the movie's not out yet, but I think the Incredibles is the one pixar movie most deserving of a sequel.
Toy Story 2 and 3, as well Incredibles 2 are the only good sequels (though only TS2 and 3 actually add anything). I confess to never watching the first incredibles in full so I think I'm going to see the sequel as better because there's not really much difference between them. Regardless the other sequels are just competent. I would love to see an actual Monsters Inc sequel as I always thought that ending greeting between Sulley and Boo could have been taken somewhere else
love your videos, and i loved the concept for this one as i agree with it. that said, i think your voice over was a lot different in this video, it seemed like a robot was talking or you were reading a script. each. word. seemed. to. have. a. pause. it also felt like it lacked emotion but i know you actually meant what was said. im not trying to be a dick if it comes off harsh, just some constructive criticism... unless it was intentional. seemed noticeable to me, take it or leave it. love you buddy keep up the good content! can't wait for the next one
Thanks for the criticism. I was sorta trying out something new with the way I talked in this video. I kinda liked it, but I'm open to going back to things as usual or going to somewhere in between. I'm not really attached to the way I talk in any of these videos haha.
Good job experimenting. You get better and find your voice by practising. I agree with Shrimp Man though. It didn't work that great this time. But keep at it! Good video.
Haha, well I guess the results are in. The speaking manner will go back to business as usual.
I also prefer your usual style, but keep in mind that a few comments / votes may not represent the majority's opinion. :)
Hmm you got a point there. I guess this is a de facto poll for people to tell me what they think about the way I talked in the video.
"I think those children were wrong to be happy" this is my favorite quote out of everything you've ever done. I laughed out loud
"those children were wrong to be happy, and you should wash my balls"
This is my favorite comment and I would consider you for a medium Joel award
You have excellent deadpan delivery.
"I think those children were wrong to be happy"
An Orange Fellow Exactly lmao that's just plain wrong
"The mafia... but with bread"
Pixar's Lineup:
Sky Man with a Sky Plan: 2020
Lady who Eats Turtles: 2022
The Mafia with Bread: 2024
*I have titles.*
2020: Head in the Clouds
2022: The Great World Tour(tise)
2024: The Mafia's Bread and Butter
@@seanconnaughton1429 those titles actually sound like titles pixar would name those movies
Sky Man with a Sky Plan is just Up with extra steps.
Pretty sure pixar would make better story’s but that could be true
Lmao is this legit?
Can't wait for Bread Mafia: Origins, 2 Sky 2 Plans, & Lonely Woman who Loves Eating Turtles' gritty reboot
Liam Eady Bread Mafia, the story of a turkey sub, a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich, a piece if naan bread, and a croissant, as they come together, despite their difference to defeat their sworn enemy, the sweets Yakuza, who are holding the Bread King [of an indiscriminate type of bread for mass appeal] for, one BILLION dollars.
2 sky 2 plan, the heroic tale of a man sent back to a time when Earth was being made, where he has to create the sky itself, however in the process makes two versions, who have a giant Mecha battle for some reason.
Lonely Woman who Loves eating Turtles [The gritty reboot of the original Saturday morning sit-com] which focuses on one woman's depression in a world where turtles are illegal to eat, and her desire for one last turtle. Spoilers, she does end up in prison.
I find myself agreeing with you about 90% of the way. The only Pixar sequels that I think as of yet have been warranted are Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 because those are the only ones that continue the narrative in a logical and satisfactory manner. Toy Story pushes the idea of Woody fearing being replaced by having him confront the idea that one day all of Andy's toys including himself will no longer be needed by Andy. Toy Story 3 has Woody and the gang finally confronting the inevitable as Andy is about to move out for college. The thematic progression of the story in the Toy Story trilogy makes sense and I enjoy it a lot.
On the other hand, I got nothing out of Cars 2, Cars 3, Monster's University, or Finding Dory. Those do not feel like a natural progression or exploration of the story and feel totally unwarranted. The Toy Story trilogy in all honesty seems more like an exception to the rule for Pixar sequels.
However, I'm tentatively excited (if a bit wary) for Toy Story 4 and The Incredibles 2. Toy Story 4's plot (from what little we've been told) seems a bit spotty on paper, but the first three films have been so good that I'm willing to give the idea a chance. The Incredibles 2 is a film that I believe could potentially explore the universe more. The end of the first film implies that superheroes have once again been reinstated by the government and I think that a lot of the drama that could come from that is something that would be interesting to explore because honestly learning about the downfall of the supers was one of my favorite parts of the first Incredibles.
I do agree that Pixar (and also Disney) has far too many sequels on the horizon. Like, I'm excited guys but I'd like some new stories please. I mean, come on now...
(I would like to see how that last idea plans out. What would the mafia want with bread... the conspiracy thickens...)
I was really into toy story two, but the third movie just didn't accomplish that much for me. Thematically, it felt like a rehash of the second movie. Again, Woody deals with his mortality, and again, he embraces pleasure in the here and now over the mysterious afterlife attic.
3 definitely treads similar waters as 2, but the difference for me is that 2 has Woody contemplating being unwanted by Andy and 3 has Woody confronting being unwanted by Andy after he has grown up. It's a subtle, but important distinction.
I can understand why some people (yourself included) probably didn't enjoy the third one as much. It is very similar to the second one in the sense that they both confront the idea of total obsolescence, when a toy no longer has a purpose to fulfill to their owner, and it covers a lot of the same ideas. I personally don't mind this though as I think it's interesting how the two films approach what is essentially the same conflict from a before point-of-view, and a present/after-the-fact point-of-view.
Finding Dory is one of the worst movies I've ever seen getting 90+% on Rotten Tomatoes. To me it is nowhere near a 90% score, and one thing I never see people mention is how it treated fish like toys, making kids think their pet goldfish could survive flopping around on land or splashing around in a public fountain, or held in small containers of water.
The film also treats disabilities as the butt of many jokes, in a way I'd honestly call 'mean-spirited'. (the dumb seal and the alpha seal on the rock, or the clumsy Beluga). It also grossly misrepresents how a Beluga's locomotion works. In the first film, you might learn something about fish from watching it. They spend most of their time doing fish things in deep water. But in the sequel they spend a majority of time flopping around on dry land, or jumping from one receptacle to another.
Antiform i dont remeber an manati apearing in the movie
all this time i never noticed i put manatee instead of beluga
Well, you were right about Incredibles 2.
I think the incredibles have more stories to tell (especially because they set up one in the first movie) but the other films such as toy story 3 and finding Nemo didn’t need one
I dunno. I kind of doubt the final scene really introduced new problems to resolve. The movie started with the superheroes in their element where there was lots of action and supervillains to fight, and the ending restored that. The main conflict was with Bob's damaged relationship with the public and Buddy, not with the random supervillains.
Toy Story always needs a new movie
Really? You think toy story 3 was unnecesary? A child that grew up and now the toys we know and love have to find a new life purpose or die as the useless pieces of plastic they are? I would be offended if Pixar wouldn't end the franchise
he means toy story 4 is unnecessary, he said toy story 3 and finding nemo don't need sequels
DX but he says Toy Story 3 is unnecesary tho
I can't wait for "A Against Pixar Sequels 2" to come out!
H O W D A R E Y O U 😂😂😂
good video but maybe next time don't use text to speech
That's text to speech?
BobSponge444 he's making a joke about how bland he sounds in this vid
I was gonna say. That's really good text to speech! Way better than Siri.
Memo
Heeeeey! Love your vids
The Mafia but with bread? You hit gold, that is something I'd love to see
Hey guys, I say at the end of this video that I would be releasing a video this Friday, but I won't be able to to do that because of unforeseen circumstances. The video should be out next Friday. Sorry 'bout that.
This guy. Speaks. In a really. Stilted way. Like he has. Too much. Punctuation. In his speech.
Alannah Oh yeah. I. Just noticed. That. Because. Of. Your comment. And now. I. Can't. Unhear it. Damnit!
DeltaGem Oh. Really?
5:18 - 5:25
@Default TM, You. Are. An. Idiot.
Pippo Poppi I.Think.He.Is.Trying.Tosound.Like.A.Deep.Uh.Analysis.That.Is.uh.thought.provoking
Some film do deserve a sequel, some don't, Incredibles do, i'll stand behind that, but yeah Toy story 4 or Finding Nemo sequel is unnecessery.
i just saw the trailer of incredibles 2 and i think i have to disagree with you .
it deserve better than what we will get sorry .
BLUE FIRE Harold Sandahl This is exactly what Brad Bird said:
"I thought about aging everybody, the way everybody does, and then I thought, 'No, that sucks.' [Laughs] So, that's about as deep as it went."
And I trust Bird and I did not want to see the characters aged since always
14 years and it became a mediocre film that adds nothing to the original
Bonnie Knight It may not be as great as the original, but it does not mean that is a failure. I'm sure that is very good at least.
Bonnie Knight I'll be happy if Incredibles 2 is a very good, really engaging and fun movie, even if inferior and not brilliant as the first, it does not mean that it is a failure. And re-encounter these compelling, great characters that we love, seeing new adventures of them, even if the movie only had this quality, and I believe that it will have far more qualities, it will already have satisfied my desires. I never could accept The Incredibles only having one movie. I am specially fascinated with the kids' characters, Violet and Dash, because I love children or teenage super-heroes since always, being a super-hero at this age is so thrilling, cool and relatable. And we will get new comics of Incredibles and I'm looking forward to read everything with new adventures of The Incredibles, specially the HQ Heroes At Home, starring Dash and Violet casually doing super-hero work in a store! So far, the movie is being praised as a worthy, cool, widly entertaining, fun and trilling sequel that is truly rewarding and the best Pixar sequel after Toy Story sequels.
And fanfictions will proliferate also.
And I want Incredibles 3 soon!
Good video But your voice sounds a bit robotic🤖
I must respectfully disagree. To the first point; I don't believe absolute originality is necessary for a film to be considered good, and I think expecting otherwise is ludicrous. The fact that a sequel takes place in the SAME WORLD as the previous film should mean nothing. Do you complain when the next episode of a TV show is in the same location? With the same characters? Do you complain when the same band creates a new album with the same type of instruments? Obviously not. Creating a follow up piece of art is a fine thing to do, as long as it's interesting. Which leads to your second point; there's no reason for these prequels to exist? I think anyone who grew up with the Toy Story franchise would disgaree. That entire trilogy follows Andy as he matures from a child to a college student, and his growth follows the age of the audience who watched the first film. Each installment allows for an exploration of deeper themes that the previous film couldn't have/didn't need to focus on. Did Cars 2 need to exist? Probably not. But you can't deny that the plot of Cars 2 is vastly more complex than the original, which I assume mirrors the development of it's primary audience members. Regardless, a sequel/prequel is justified in its existence IF the characters are compelling and the plot is engaging. Some Pixar films may not meet those standards, but to suggest ALL of them don't is dismissive and way too generalizing.
I’m gonna go through this comment pretty closely. I’m not trying to pick on you here, it was a good comment. I just think that some of the points you’re raising are probably shared by a good number of people.
“I don't believe absolute originality is necessary for a film to be considered good, and I think expecting otherwise is ludicrous”
I agree. I said on multiple occasions that I don’t think all Pixar sequels are bad. My purpose wasn’t to make absolute statements about the quality of Pixar sequels, it was to say that I think they ought to not make more of them if they want to make the best films possible.
“The fact that a sequel takes place in the SAME WORLD as the previous film should mean nothing. Do you complain when the next episode of a TV show is in the same location?”
No, I don’t think that sequels are, de facto, all bad. Nor do I think that shows have to change their environments every five seconds. What I do think is that Pixar, specifically, shouldn’t make sequels. That’s because a huge amount of the enjoyment I get from these films is the wonder and excitement I get from seeing a new, creative, beautifully rendered world. That joy is much less pronounced when I see that a new film shares a huge number of aesthetic commonalities with an old one.
“There's no reason for these prequels to exist? I think anyone who grew up with the Toy Story franchise would disgaree.”
I actually went to college the same year Andy from Toy Story did. These films are directly targeted at people my age, and, uhh, I disagree.
“Each installment allows for an exploration of deeper themes that the previous film couldn't have/didn't need to focus on.”
While I agree that Toy Story Two touched on deeper, more complex themes than the original toy story did, I don’t think Toy Story 3 added much to the equation. I’m not going to fully substantiate that belief since it would take too long. But it’s fine if you disagree with me here. The point wasn’t that no Pixar sequel was vital or interesting, it was that broadly speaking, they don’t serve as great a purpose as original Pixar movies do.
“Did Cars 2 need to exist? Probably not. But you can't deny that the plot of Cars 2 is vastly more complex than the original”
Is that right? I’m not saying you’re wrong with this, just that I’ve sorta blocked out Cars 2 from my memory. It doesn’t seem more thematically rich than the original? It seems like a bucket of actual garbage, but maybe I should revisit it?
In your conclusion, you restate your introduction, so that’s about all I have to respond with. Thanks for watching and giving this so much thought!
Correction. I was actually 15 years old when toy story 3 was made. I still think my point there stands, though. I grew up with the films, is the idea. I wonder how old people generally think I am.
Big Joel Well, I was 18 when Toy Story 3 came out, so roughly the same age as Andy, give or take a year, and I agree with Daniel here. Although I will add my own two cents: so far, the Toy Story sequels seem to be the exception that confirms the rule in the case of whether Pixar sequels/prequels are good or bad. To list all of them:
Cars 2: piss-poor movie that failed to add anything to an already crappy film and stands as Pixar's all time low(imo).
Cars 3: Pixar pulling up their socks and showing that the Cars franchise is worth a damn after all. I guess in the grand scheme of things, all 3 movies never should have happened, but this shows that even out of something like Cars, You can make something decent.
Finding Dory: an entertaining story by itself, but a failure of a sequel. I watched Finding Nemo a lot as I was a kid, and I was entertained with the story of Marlin, Not Dory. Dory for me was the sidekick comic relief, and even though she had her moments, never really managed to come out of that role. So when a Nemo sequel was announced and that it would focus on Dory, all I could think of was: "Why?". I saw, and still don't see, any reason why Dory in particular should be the centrepiece of a sequel. Actually, come to think of it, they did that with Cars 2 too. Maybe it's a trend at this point. A trend Pixar needs to bury in the ground fast.
Monsters University: now I may be a little bias on this one, because its release closely mirrors the time when I was studying for my college application(or rather, the high-school diploma that would allow me to get into college). And contrary to most people, I actually enjoyed this film as a stand-alone Story. One thing I will agree on however, is that there was no point in showing Sully and Mike's origin story. Everyone who grew up watching Monsters Inc. would have rather had a sequel that expanded on the last 5 minutes of the movie(You know you want it).
We can see a trend with these universe expansions: they don't really add anything to the narrative of the originals. And that's where Toy Story 2 and 3 break the mold for me. Toy Story's original premise is hilariously unique compared to most of their movies(not to say none of them see unique, just that Toy Story's was more), and I can confidently say that the first film didn't, and simply couldn't encompass all the aspects of that premise. The Toy Story sequels are there to see to that premise. In 2, Woody learns he's part of something bigger, and can achieve some kind of immortality, at the cost of the love of a single child. To contrast that, we see Buzz learning he's also part of something bigger, and we see the two characters deal with their similar situations in different and conflicting ways. In 3, we see Andy, the kid that has been evolving around all of the main group's lives, grow up and mature, to the point that he doesn't his toys anymore. And this throws out all of the morals of the second movie out the window, or rather deals with them at the extreme: do the toys stay faithful to Andy in the attic, or do they move on? I think the movie deals with the theme excellently, and most importantly, brings a feeling of closure to the whole series. The Toy Story franchise had a beginning, middle and end. That's why I was thoroughly displeased when they announced a fourth movie, which to me has no point in existing and is only a cash-grab, contrary to 2 and 3. And this brings me to The Incredibles 2. The first movie was amazing, as anyone can, will and should agree. And it had a good self-contained story, with just a little element of mystery added to the mix: Jack-Jack's powers. I, like a lot of fans, have been screaming for a sequel for years, and practically went through the roof when it was finally announced. But I mellowed out in time, and sat to ponder: was that sequel really necessary? In a narrative sense, no. The first film came and gone, leaving practically no loose threads behind it. But, if the quality of the movie stands at least as good as the first, then I won't complain about that movie being released, and will enjoy it.
This took ay longer than I thought it would, hope you have a good read if you happen to read this.
I definitely agree that toy story 2 and 3 added more to the universe than did any other Pixar sequel. More than that, they were just more vital films on their own. And I agree that even though Incredibles 2 doesn't feel necessary, if it's good, it's good. I can't complain if it gives us new things to look at and a new, good story. This was a good read, by the way!
Big Joel thx m8
Is it possible to develop a crush over video essay? Asking for a friend.
To me, when a sequel or reboot happens, there must be a twist involved, or an unsolved question must be answered. I’ll go over the sequels and what questions they answer or their twist
Toy Story 2: What are Woody’s origins?
Toy Story 3: What happens when Andy grows up?
Cars 2: ...that didn’t need to happen in the first place
Cars 3: What happens when the new and modern generation comes in?
Incredibles 2: Looks like the question is “What about Jack Jack?”
Finding Dory: What happened to Dory’s parents?
Wade Wilson In Incredibles 2, the question is: how is the family's life and their personalities now that they embraced being super-heroes, and the implications of that?
Wade Wilson Super-heroes always have so much room for expansion. Search the commentary made by GoingRampant in this page, please.
Wade Wilson From what I've heard about Toy Story 4: What happened to Bo Peep and the other missing toys?
About Toy Story 2, when I was little I didn't even know there was a movie before that, so the second one was my first Toy Story movie. I don't see Toy Story 2 as a sequel. To me it's just a Toy Story movie, my favourite one of all of them.
whoa! that's interesting :D
Same i mean TS2 was my first toy story movie 2, and It was funny cause i watch the First one as a sequel
Haha same here
Toy Story 2 was the only one I watched as a kid, now I feel less weird.
I am going to disagree with you on one point that I think is the basis of your argument and is something incredibly subjective. I disagree with you that Pixar should not make sequels.
Your argument is correct. The stories that Pixar tells are incredible in that nothing goes to waste. They are self-contained and complete the narrative that they seek to tell. And if you are watching only for the story, then that is all you really need.
But some of us don't watch just for the story. I know, personally, if I can't relate or connect to the characters than the story moves me less. If I think the main character acts out of character, as I see their character, then I dislike the story less even if others can tell me how they did act in character. I think of the book Wicked in this case as I found it boring and uninteresting where the book club I was with found it engaging and thought-provoking. Sometimes I want a sequel not to continue the story, but rather because I want to spend more time with the characters that they created.
Let's take the Incredibles II. I too am disappointed, but probably not for the same reason you are. You are disappointed because they are making a sequel. I am disappointed because it appears that the sequel takes place shortly after the first one ended. I am not interested in that part. I want the characters to confront something that may force them to challenge the core of the character. I want the Par family to deal with separation, such as Violet going to college or Dash taking up crime. It is the same story again, something threatening to break up the family, but this time it would be the kids rather than the adults.
I agree that a lot of sequels are shameless cash grabs. But I would have been fine with a Wall-E sequel to see how he and Eve react to the changing environment if they didn't have the wrap up in still images at the end. And often, I don't need a full movie. Something that shows that the characters I spend 90 minutes getting to know and care about continue to live after this tale is complete is often enough for me.
So I think a sequel needs to be judged by how much it was required for the characters. Toy Story 2 was good and changed and grew the characters. I remember a lot about that movie. Toy Story 3 did not and was less good. I only really remember the end and that was because of the connection I felt with the characters more than anything else.
So really, I am not excited for every Pixar sequel out there. I am only excited if I care about the character enough that I want to continue to experience their life. If I don't, then I would much rather that they would spend that time creating one that I would want to be with instead.
Harold Sandahl I liked that The Incredibles 2 takes place right after the first. I like to re-encounter characters exactly in the point when they left off, and developed them from there. Of course, it is not a rule that must be set in stone (Toy Story 3 is great), but I generally prefer sequels this way. I respect you, but I am not disappointed that the sequel will be right after the first. Instead, I could not be happier that it is this way. And I trust Brad Bird's work.
Harold Sandahl I would like to see Violet's character with more screen time in Incredibles 2, know more about her and how is the family's life, and Violet's personality specially, now that the family works as super-heroes. After the ending of the first, I always wanted to know how is their life and combat to crime now that that they are back. How all of them react to the change of their lives that happened in the first movie, I want to know.
I agree that I would've preferred a "time skip" for the Incredibles 2. Massively disappointed that Jack-Jack was still an infant just for one example. I would've loved to see what power he actually ended up developing, and his personality too. The only one who really seemed to beef up was Dash, and that honestly made me proud. Wonder if he got into some major physical sports like football or something. I know that buff athletic physique anywhere. That, and if the movie is going into the direction I think it is "bumbling husband left with the kids while wife goes out to life of luxury," then this... yeah, this is gonna be bad.
rhonda howard Honestly, I am happy that they didn't do the time loop. I like to see the evolution of the children right after movie.
Brad Bird said that he tought of doing a time jump, but ultimately said "I am not interested in seeing a college-age Jack, for example, and if we aged the characters, we would lose the dynamics of them that we established in the first movie."
Harold Sandahl Brad Bird has said in interviews that he considerd doing the time jump, but ultimately has simply no interest in seeing the characters years after the first movie.
You seem very critical and bitter.
I like it
August ´Poul´ Niclasen rrtt
Jewel Jardine Why yes I am a registered respiratory therapy technician. How'd you know?
@@AngryPeopleStudios Up there with the top replies I've ever seen
I totally feel you in this regard. But not with Toy Story and Incredibles. Sure they both had plots that fully convey characters as they are and become. But there was and is still a lot interesting narratives that can come from where they end up. Toy Story makes sense to have sequels because the Toys have to deal with Andy growing up. Incredibles makes sense since while the family works together now, Jack Jack's new found powers can really alter their family dynamic as well as how Heroes are still illegal at the end. I'm all for new aesthetic but I'm also totally down for further narratives. i swear if I see another Cars or Planes movie though I'mma riot haha
Can we actually get a Pixar movie about the Bread Mafia
Just you wait for complaints from Italian Americans for portraying them as members of the Mafia.
But Toy Story 2 was better than the first one... but okay.
So was the 3rd one
1 and 2 are on par in my opinion. 2 introduces more characters with relevance and an interesting new plot. 3 wasnt as good but good enough to watch multiple times without getting bored. surprised theres a 4th one but.. *cough* money *cough*
1>3>2
Toy Story 3 just repeats the same formula as the 2nd one, that's why it's my least favorite.
@@sulejmaniapologist No it does definitely not
This is really well-argued and for the most part, I agree. I offer a counterpoint: Toy Story 3 is not just pretty good it's a masterpiece and the best Toy Story movie. Had they not made it, it would have been a huge loss. It's true that animators can do anything and don't have to be limited to anything, but so does any type of artist. Having a completely original concept means nothing if they don't have the talent to pull it off. And Pixar are at their best when they have a story they love and the story they love works.
I'm excited for Incredibles 2 because I love those characters enough to watch one more movie with them. I dare say it's necessary because every character except maybe Bob has so much promise that was not fulfilled in the first.
Oh, another counterargument: I think bringing up Pixar's economic storytelling style as an argument against them making sequels does a disservice to the diversity of stories they tell. Ratatouille, for example, is a self-contained story that would not lend itself to a sequel. And if they greenlit one, I would be sure that Pixar has gone insane. But that's a story where the characters end goal is to lead satisfying happy lives without expecting further conflict. This is different from the characters of Toy Story, whose goal is constantly to remain innocent, which is a goal that can never be fully achieved. And then there is Incredibles, where some of the characters, in pursuit of adventure and excitement, leave a comfortable life of minor conflict, and enter a much less innocent world. The Incredibles is a perfect movie, but it is not one that said everything you could about it's characters. At least, not from my point of view.
It's an interesting point. I'll agree to an extent. I just think there is room for continuing adventures of characters sometimes. Incredibles has a transition ending, not a wrap-up. The family has become active crime-fighters; their baby has powers yet to be fully explored; the world is changing; supervillains are back and superheroes are returning to meet the threat. The family's arcs have been resolved in the individual movie, but it's a start of something bigger. It might have to do with the film being based on the Fantastic Four comic book series, which is formatted with nesting arcs so that stuff gets resolved in individual books and sets of books but is always advancing onward. It's like Iron Man more or less resolving the arcs introduced in the story and then ending with the transition to a new world where Tony is open about being a superhero, presumably isn't willing to stop, and is approached by Nick Fury to tell him he's transitioned to the greater world. They did not know they would necessarily jumpstart the MCU, so Iron Man is self-contained, but it has the superhero transitional ending inviting a sequel. Not all of the MCU films are great, but it made sense that there would be a continuation off of Iron Man.
GoingRampant You took all the words from my mouth
Ope. Guess what happened...
I actually liked toy story 2 more than toy story 1 and I can't wait for the incredible 2
I just love the line "i think the children were wrong to be happy", even without the context. Thank you.
Pixar should hire Dan Harmon to make that movie about a guy that wants to eat shit but the government is telling him to stop. That does deserve further exploration.
The real trick with Pixar sequels is that Toy Story 2 was planned to be released straight-to-VHS due to a sequel being commissioned by Disney, but they realized that what they made was so good it should be in theaters. That felt like a genuine decision that even they were surprised by and it happened because the movie was great. It was a shock.
If a good Pixar sequel outside of the Toy Story franchise ever exists, I’ll be equally as surprised as they were when they made Toy Story 2. Pixar sequels outside of Toy Story DO feel like straight-to-DVD movies that come to theaters. It’s kind of sad.
Burger King Foot Lettuce
same
i was just about to comment that, and then i wanted to see if anyone beat me to the punch
thank you Kanye, very cool!
I don't think most pixar movies are aesthetically original in the first place. they all have that same sort of style that most modern kids movies have.
Also I would really like to watch the lonely woman who likes eating turtles movie.
Yeah but Pixar kind of created that style, so they get a pass lol
I. Like. When. You. Talk. Like. This.
Counter points:
1. If there ever was a Pixar movie that was set up for a sequel then it was The Incredibles. The first movie was a lot like an origin story and there was still a lot to explore.
2. Toy Story 2 and 3.
@Anon . I don't even think I would say it was trash. It was enjoyable, it just wasn't nearly as good as the first.
Sequels work because we care about the characters from the get go and are excited about what's going on with them since we last saw them. If the kids around you in the theater were getting super pumped, that's the reason. An original movie trailer wouldn't produce excitement of the same level. At the end of the day, I want my kids to enjoy the film. If it has them excited and emotionally invested the whole way through because of the familiar faces, then it's serving its purpose. After all, these movies are meant to be enjoyed. And what is enjoyable to some (new settings) might seem boring to others (characters you don't know or care about yet).
The point about closing off new creative possibilities is something I've never thought about but it's so true. For the same reason something like Coco or Luca likely won't strike you with the same aww at how gorgeous their worlds are a second time on second viewing a sequel wouldn't do that either and it's kind of sad.
Toy Story 2: Better than the original
Toy Story 3: Arguably even better
Cars 2: The worst Pixar movie, but still better than most other animated films
Cars 3: A vast improvement over 2
Monsters University: Not better than the original, but just as interesting and fun
Finding Dory: Better than the original
Incredibles 2: Just as good as the original, arguably even better
Honestly? I feel the opposite, let Pixar make as many sequels as they want. They clearly know how to make good sequels so I see no reason to let them stop. I'd personally like to see a continuation of Inside Out or Wall-E, both feel like they have more stories to tell.
Also: "I think those children were wrong to be happy"... That's really petty you know.
take a shot every time he says “ya know”
wh holy SHIT did you really just say you don't think animation should have sequels?? like, period??
look my dude i'm every bit as tired of the pixar sequels as everyone else but this Hot Take is just....
Bad.....
Though i'd also say re: the second point- you're mostly right, but I do feel that finding dory does warrant its own existence in a way: finding nemo has a minor thing in which two out of its three main characters have a disability of some kind, but then they...never... really.......say anything about it...
I think finding dory being more of an exploration of that aspect makes it an interesting film that justified its own existence in that regard.
I strongly believe Pixar’s movies are made to tell one story in a contained world with each character completing their arc within said movie. Buzz’s main character arc and biggest reason he was made was “you are a toy”. The point is even made more clear when they meet up with a “fresh” Buzz lightyear in 2 and when they re-set him in 3. In toy story 4 I’m sure they’ll find a way to give us a delusional buzz yet again.
The notion of characters needing to need more story seems like an arbitrary thing to appeal to though. No new character needs a new story and more than an old character, until you create an arc for them.
There's no reason why an OG character can't have new expanded arcs beyond their original. When that arc is bad, it does risk harming the original story in my opinion, but I also think limiting their existence to a single story arc that worked is only as necessary as the writers choose to make it.
Pixar sequels list:
_Toy Story 2_ - 1999
Cars 2 - 2011
Cars 3 - 2017
_Finding Dory_ - 2016
_Toy Story 3_ - 2010
_Incredibles 2_ - 2018
_Toy Story 4_ - 2019
_Monsters University_ - 2013
Almost some of these sequels are about the sidekick characters
For example-
Cars 2 - Mater
Monsters University - Mike
Finding Dory - Dory
Incredibles 2 - Elastigirl
Yes yes yes. As someone who loves and studies animation this is what I've been telling people for ages. Every hope I've had for a Pixar sequel has been dashed. As you said, Toy Story 2 and maybe 3 are exceptions. The specific trend of Pixar which you touched on is to use the sequel to explore a secondary character, a character that was written to BE a supporting character, into a main character. And Coco is the best Pixar movie in years.
I loved puss in boots 2 because it didn't give a shit about the first movie in terms of style and even characters
god i love big joel. only big joel would mention his stewing disagreements among happy children
I'm glad Toy Story 2 and 3 exist. Also if Toy Story 3 didn't exist, everybody would always be wondering what happened to the toys after Andy grew up. I was honestly thinking about that a little before 3 even came out after Stinky Pete brought up Andy going to college in Toy Story 2.
Now Toy Story 4 and every other Pixar sequel was unneeded though.
And now we are getting Toy Story 5.
OmG, Pixar definitely needs to make a movie about the Sky Man making a sky plan to cheer up the lonely, turtle-eating matriarch of the Bread Mafia.
I still liked Finding Dory and Monsters University.
Sky man with sky plans, the mafia with bread, lonely woman who loves eating turtles = the best movie ideas ever
Normally I enjoy Pixar sequels but I heard there’s going to be a Toy Story 4..
The third one had a perfect ending. I really do not want a 4th and a 5th and so on.
Sadly that came true
a Bug's Life 2 never came to fruition
Mike Wazowski was my favorite character in Monsters, Inc. and he definitely deserved tp have his spotlight in the prequel
Toy Story 4 was my favorite in the series, actually.
it and the first one, I'd say. Just some absolutely perfect thematic writing and pacing.
Alexandria P. Least
I mostly agree in the sense that I also do not like Pixar sequels and no longer want to support them, but I disagree that animated sequels SHOULDN'T exist. Toy Story 2 is a fantastic case for how a sequel can hold its own (and even surpass) the original (Not Toy Story 3, though).
And what is so incredible about Toy Story 2 is that Disney pushed Pixar into making it, gave them a short budget and a short time frame for a straight to DVD release, and then backed them into a corner when they decided they wanted it to be a feature for theatrical release instead. Disney could do all this because of their early contract with Pixar. So Lasseter and Pixar rewrote the film entirely and challenged themselves to create a story that EXPANDED the world and psychosis of toys. They gave Woody room to grow on his search for his identity, and to learn from the new characters they introduced. Toy Story 2 may be full of fun, but I found the emotional beats in that film all the more compelling than the 1st film. I will always love the original Toy Story and proclaim that it is the most original animated film of our generation, but Toy Story 2 is a worthy sequel and only proves to me that I should expect better from Pixar when they keep trying to sell me on these back to back sequels. There is no excuse to cheaply rehash very original films and market them as a franchise that never ruffles the feathers of their characters or audience. This 100% feels like the corporate influence of Disney, and THAT is what makes me very sad when I sit in a theatre and watch The Incredibles 2.
I agree with you for most movies but in the case of the incredibles it's a universe that begs for serialization
I pretty much whole-heartedly agree with the sentiment of this video. The only exceptions however I think are Toy Story 2 and Cars 3. The only reason I think those sequels are justified is because there was more life left in the concept of living toys and talking race cars. Personification is a more powerful and interesting concept... I mean if there was anything that drove me to sit through fresh hell that was Sausage Party to the end, it was the concept of the personification of food and the horrifying existential metaphor that managed to clumsily come out of it.
Something like Finding Nemo doesn't have anything aesthetically or narratively left to give, and more importantly, neither does the fish metaphor. The thing unique to Toy Story and Cars is that the stories were metaphors for a human experience realized through the concepts of common personification. Kids really do sometimes project their feelings onto their toys and talk to them like friends... lonely adults really do refer to their precious collector classic cars as if they were alive and could hear them. For these reasons, these metaphors have more dynamic utility in story telling than a concept based on a singular notion like "fish out of water", or "up in the air", or "corporate monster"... concepts based on metaphors that have one intended meaning that can be plugged into a dramatic narrative.
Cars 2 was garbage for one reason more than any other - more so than a meandering nonsensical plot that thrived on making the most outlandish genre trappings work within the concept of living vehicles, it was the separation of the concept from the human experience. Cars 3 brought it back, and I would argue in a way that far outshone the original Cars movie while serving as a relevant counterpart to that original story. Toy Story 2 did the same thing. It used the same concept the first movie used to explore themes of "cruelty to those who are different" to explore themes of fatalism... that is definitely upping the stakes and making good use of the metaphor.
Toys are used to express our deeper emotions such as cruelty (Toy Story), and they break, get lost, and might be better off sealing themselves away in a safe space away from harm and heartache (Toy Story 2) - both great themes to explore with the concept. Cars take you through life too fast to enjoy the little things (Cars), and they break down and get junked out and replaced (Cars 3). These sequels were relevant to the unique concept and upped the stakes.
That's why The Incredibles 2, Finding Dory, Monsters University, and Toy Story 3 really ran out of steam. The concepts had nothing left to improve on. The first Incredibles used the concept of a super hero family to the fullest. Finding Nemo used the concept of talking fish to its fullest. Toy Story 3 only chocked up to being a less concise version of Toy Story 2 with an alternate ending that kinda sorta vaguely followed up on the flip side to those themes. The metaphors in Monsters, Inc. are really only good for one narrative, and any sequels or prequels will either have to repeat the same message or find a way to separate it completely; which in the end gives it virtually no value in being attached to another movie because it's just the same aesthetic and characters in a completely different story in which they are hardly even the same characters and using the same setting isn't justified in the slightest... and that's energy that ought to be poured into a new concept with a new visual aesthetic and new characters and themes, where imagination and creative freedom can flourish.
For a high school honors diploma, I had to do a 45 minute presentation of my choice. While most students did something controversial or groundbreaking (such as stem cell research, chemicals in food, or impact of space exploration to name a few,) I decided to ask how Pixar changed the animation industry. (Thanks American school system!) From what I researched, Disney forced Pixar to make Toy Story 2 as a straight to DVD movie. Whenever Disney did this, they were training younger animators and giving them more experience before working on bigger projects. Pixar started working on Toy story 2 but decided it was too good to go straight to DVD, so they changed some released dates to allow space for Toy story 2 in theaters. (If anyone is wonder, Pixar has short films rather than terrible sequels to help new animators develop the skill and also play with the technology since they are the leaders in cgi.) Basically, with the release if Toy Story 2, Pixar could not oppose any sequels Disney proposed. There was going to be Monsters Inc 2: Lost in Scaridise, but John Lassetor said no. When Disney bought Pixar, Disney wanted Pixar to be the cash cow, so that's a big reason why Pixar is pumping out so many sequels. I strongly dislike this because the only sequels I like are the Toy Story movies, but I'm very opposed to the 4th movie. I thought Incredibles 2 was fantastic and I was shocked by how much I enjoyed it. I thought it would be like Finding Dory or Cars 3. I still wish there were more originals. Also, excellent point about the aesthetic. I had the honor to interview Danielle Feinberg from Pixar and she told me a lot about the animation and cgi technology. You don't notice a lot of things until it's not there, such as the steady movement of the clouds or a gust of wind. I felt like Finding Dory wasn't as good visually in terms of story telling but I couldn't figure out why until you mentioned it.
To me, the Toy Story trilogy is the only exception. Each film explores questions about the world of toys, and in the end brings things full circle with Bonnie as their new owner.
Now what I consider to be worse than sequels are live action remakes! Unlike sequels, they are just redoing everything step by step! Sure a bad sequel may ruin the cannon of the film, but a live action remake is pointless.
I would have to agree with you on a few points in here that most Pixar sequels aren't warranted as their original counterparts. The only films that I feel like that are warranted for a sequel are Toy Story 2, Cars 2, and Cars 3. Even though that the cars sequels may be trash, they actually do serve purpose for a sequel than most other Pixar sequels that has been released. The reason why I do feel like that they're warranted is because they do actually expanded the universe and themes of their own movie and even continuing the story even further. Even though that Toy Story 3 may be a great movie, It's actually not a good as sequel but great as a solid movie. In Toy Story 2, Woody has learned about his backstory and on how toys can't last forever. In Toy Story 3 however, nothing is ever changed. It actually uses the same themes as Toy Story 2. It's even outstanding to me that Cars 2 and 3, a worse film than Toy Story 3 had actually added more depth to their own universe than Toy Story 3. With the new Toy Story 4 coming soon this summer, the trailer reveals that It uses some of the same themes from Toy Story 2 and 3 in which we don't exactly know until It's released, but It actually expands the universe and story in some way better than Toy Story 3 that Toys can at least be created by anything with a face characteristic that doesn't have a toy soul and with Little Bo Peep having an entirely new character arc as an original character unlike that Toy Story 3 had added no new character arc to Its original characters.
I agree with everything you said, but the Incredibles ended on a cliff hanger and they are done of my favorite super heroes because they exist in a world outside of Marvel and they're likable.
I never thought about it that way… But you’re so right that every decision in a Pixar film is deliberate so a sequel has nothing new or interesting to bring to the table and thus isn’t really worth anyone’s time. It’s just so unnecessary
Toy Story 1-3? I loved them. Each film came out at a different point of my life, from childhood, to adolescence, to adulthood. I was in tears at the end of Toy Story 3... It felt complete.
I refuse to watch the 4th film, however.
TL:DR besides the first 3 Toy Story films, I agree with you.
Watch the 4th movie. Was an excellent nail in the coffin in the best way possible. Lots of heart and sets the characters on a path at the end that they really can't make any more films. I was gonna skip it too, it seemed unnecessary, but it's a perfect sendoff.
Monsters U wasn't a a sequel though it was a prequel...
Sam Teinert same difference
I love the Toy Story sequels, because I feel the whole trilogy (at the time of this comment's writing) works just in terms of Woody and his growth from an asshole to a real leader. And, I get some feels from Cars 3 and a chuckle from McQueen and his dad jokes. But for the rest, I agree. Pixar doesn't write stories that need sequels, and even the Toy Story movies weren't strictly speaking necessary. Woody's transformation from bossy jerk to chill good guy in the first original was all that was essential. If it wasn't for the fact that it's so rare to see that classic character arc continue in an upward momentum, (rather than stagnating or going back to square one for forced drama) then it's possible I wouldn't find the movies as satisfying.
I know this is an old video and so no one probably cares but I think it's important to point out that the context surrounding Toy Story 2 is dramatically different from literally all their other sequels. Toy Story 2 was being rushed out by Disney with a different creative team against Pixar's wishes. Pixar had no interest in sequels at the time as they had only made 2 other movies before that, but when Lasseter and the original team saw the direction Toy Story 2 was going down they were so upset and embarrassed they decided to take on the burden and make it themselves with a little over a year to revamp the story and fully animate it (which is obviously no time at all in animation), and I think that under those insane restraints and pressure they managed to pull through and make something that I think is at least narratively even more interesting than the first Toy Story, but whether or not you agree with that the shitty production process still separates TS2 from the cynical cash grabs of the other sequels imo
Observing the modern pixars, I usually think: "Wow they still got it!" but there's this lingering sensation that something more could be done and how the originals never left me with that feeling. For some strange reason I just didn't like everything about Inside Out but Coco was pretty awesome. Inside out felt pandering and a little emotionally manipulative, while still being alright in a lot of ways. Coco felt like a world filled with love and passion. I started to think maybe it was just me growing up and not understanding kids movies like I used to, but this video has made the answer a little more complicated for me. I think knowing there's more to it is a good thing so thank you.
You know what...I think I was right to be bummed
*I think those children were wrong to be happy*
Pixar's Bread Mafia, coming 2021 xD
6:19 If WALL-E proved anything, then it's that the sky's definitely not the limit where Pixar is concerned.
Something I noticed about Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 is they both find a way to have a significant chunk of the movie have "Buzz Lightyear but he doesn't know he's a toy" which feels so indicative that the character was never made with anything else to explore past the first movie to the point they had to bring back his pre-development personality. Still like those movies, but you can tell they were stretched thin by the tight nature of the first movie.
Perhaps one could relate this to your other video on the recurring theme of obsolescence in Pixar's movies. In becoming obsolete, one is finding oneself in the wrong order. Consequently, one must enter chaos, the unknown, and eventually discover (or arguably create) a new order. As you mention, they have extremely tight and economical scripts, which is why they are able to finish this arc in the run time of one movie. What may be happening is that in selecting an old character, they are selecting the order of that character from the beginning of the first movie, as opposed to the end. What this effectively means is that they repeat the same character arc. This supports your points regarding the fact that the visual artistry becomes severely less imaginative, which is another way of emulating a new order.
When reusing the same art style of the previous movie, with this art style not changing throughout the original, it is unclear to the viewer what order the character is actually in. Of course, Pixar can't make radical alterations to the artistic direction of the original movie in the sequel, which is one additional argument to support your case against Pixar sequels.
"I think that children were wrong to be happy" that's one of the funniest lines I've heard in a while, love your videos!
I actually have nothing against sequels or prequels, as long as the story is good, I'm fine with it. That's why I loved Finding Dory, in the first movie she was a character to laugh at, I mean she was great and all, but her mental problem wasn't really taken seriously. I think in Finding Dory, we get another side of the coin that we didn't get to explore before, which is the struggle Dory has to go through because of her mental health. Saying that disney sequels and prequels are just cash grabs is a very...generalized statement. The only sequels I've seen that are shitty from Pixar are Monsters University and Cars 2 (and let's be honest, Cars wasn't that great to begin with). Besides that, I really don't have much to complain about their continuations of stories.
Hmm, I would say that regardless of the quality of pixar sequels, they are cash grabs. Look at it this way, when the studio is deciding what movie to make, they have a choice between a gamble, a new creative project, or a sure thing, an established IP. By making the sequel, they are making the better economic decision, in most cases at least. That said, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with art having a financial motivation, so long as it's good art haha.
Big Joel By that logic, everything, even the good movies in hollywood, are cashgrabs, which might be true, but as long as they’re good stories I’ve got no problem with it xD
I agree with you. I mean the whole idea of a sequel is to explore the lore of that universe. And I think Finding Dory is still an enjoyable film even MU I didn't mind. Cars 2 while a mess I seriously can't hate on it like some do.
Do your damn research before making that accusation, if it was just as simple as making money MOST of their sequels wouldn't be as spaced out as they are. Andrew Stanton thought the story to finding nemo was finished, until he saw it in 3d years later and realized there were still questions about Dory that NEEDED to be answered. You can't just label them as cash grabs because it took Finding Dory 13 years to get made, and the Incredibles have around that number as well. Toy story 3 was years away from toy story 2. They never do a sequel unless they feel there's still more story to tell. The only reason cars got sequels is because it was apparently John lasseter's passion project, their the exception to the rule.
Big Joel So, you are saying that all sequels are cash grabs, not just Pixar. But every movie is a cash grab. Besides, using your logic of making a sequel as always a cash grab and, consequently, that we should never decide to make them in the first place, we would never have seen movies like The Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather Part II, Terminator 2, Aliens, Back To The Future Part II, Toy Story 2 and many other great movies. But I am just making a radical interpretation of your opinion, I know that you don't mean things at this level.
Sadly, Francis Ford Coppola said once that he should not have made The Godfather Part II! Yes, part II, not only III. He said that he considers now that all story that really needed to be told was told in the first Godfather. This is sad
Okay the 3 "things you'd rather see than more Pixar sequels" at the end caught me completely off guard and made me laugh
I agree with you especially after Finding Dory. The Incredibles was such a mature and powerful story and I already saw the family learn their most important lessons. Anything after just won't hold the same weight.
I don't agree with this reasoning. I think a sequel is always welcome if it has something to say as much as it's predecessor.. The Toy Stories are basically the only time in history it's fully worked for animated features. They had something logical to do and say that pushed that universe further. The Cars sequels, Monsters U, Dory, and Incredibles 2 aren't as strong because they explore themes and characters that have nothing to do with the original arc and focus on secondary "comic relief" characters that were not meant to hold the story on their own, but as a proper duo like in the first film. Toy Story is almost always about Woody's journey with some Buzz on the side. Cars just let Mater completely take over in Cars 2. Monsters U focuses on Mike Wazowski; Dory focuses on Dory; and Incredibles 2 focuses on Elastigirl. Those characters were not designed to lead a whole movie on their own and are meant as a foil to the main character.
Don't get me wrong, I love sequels and I really liked all of the Pixar sequels, but the reason the Toy Story movies are so good is because they are very tightly focused and wisely know what they need to do to service it's most important character (ie: Woody).
I bet you if they would have kept a strong story for Sulley, Marlin, Bob, and Lightning McQueen in their respective sequels they would have been much more tonally consistant and stronger movies as a whole; and people would not have hated Mater, Dory, Mike, and Helen, as they do now.
Toy Story 4 actually turned out to be a worthy and needed edition to the trilogy tho
Congrats on being right! Incredibles 2 was a disappointment. As was Toy Story 4. They both felt like lazy cash grabs. Wish you weren't right, but you were!
Cars 2 wasn't a cash grab. It was John Lasseter's pet project.
And what a masterpiece it was!
Monster University is a prequel, not a sequel.
Thank you so much! I try and talk to my friends about this but, they don't listen. I'm tired of hearing how amazing Disney is when their relying on our nostalgia to give them money. Thank you
I am okay with sequels and reboots... As long as these are good
And I´m tired of that argument of "but the sequels aren't necessary"!
Did you know some of the best movie sequels werent necessary in first place?(Terminator 2, Aliens, the godfather 2, Rocky 2, Toy Story 2, The Empire Strikes Back; originally Star wars was going to be a single movie before becoming a franchise... And I can continue)
As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a breadster.
"And then the 80s came around, and well lets say I completely ignored Solidarność..."
I agree with this video. Whenever Pixar has an original idea like Coco, Up, and Ratatouille, the majority of them turn out to be beautifully animated, well voice acted, wonderfully directed and written, etc. The sequels (with an exception to the Toy Story films) always seem to do the same thing with less investment in the story and characters. I recently saw The Incredibles 2 and while it's a fun movie, it's not nearly as close to being as spectacular as the first one.
Boy were those children wrong to be happy. Also I had not considered it until this video but what is the point of Monster’s University? Besides only compounding on the dystopian nightmare world of the monsters (appropriate I guess, if still not a good creative decision) it so easily could have been Ghost’s University or Alien’s University, it is simply a vehicle for known intellectual property because the world is scary and it makes children want to see what they are familiar with before they are old enough to know that sequels generally suck
The mafia, but with... bread. Frickin' gold.
Good idea. Except for Toy Story 2 Pixar has changed their minds more then once about how one sequel should be made and it's all because Disney has made them close down Circle 7 animation. That's no excuse to change your mind more then once about a sequel if you ask me.
I actually like Finding Dory A LOT more than Finding Nemo...
Quite an unpopular oppinion, I guess.
Finding Dory was very disappointing for me, and from the beginning I found it unnecessary.
Incredibles II looks boring, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
I didn't like Toy Story 3, but it was nice closure to the series. Toy Story 4 is stretching it and I doubt I'd like it.
I haven't seen Cars 2 since I was younger, and I remember liking it. if I saw it again, I would probably like it in an ironic sense.
I liked Cars 3, but it felt unnecessary. But it does feel like a nice closure to the series, since it came full circle.
Monsters University stands out as one of the ones I actually really enjoyed. I have become more critical the more times I watched it, but I thought it was funny, had a good message, and set up Mike & Sully's friendship. I may be a bit biased though, since Monsters Inc is my favorite Pixar movie.
Overall, Sequels are good... If done well. I'd not done well, they feel unneeded, boring, or like a cash grab.
Who knows, maybe Incredibles 2 and Toy Story 4 will be good. I doubt it, but I'll still find some enjoyment out of the movies.
"In this country, you gotta make the bread first. Then when you get the bread, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women." - Breadmafia 2020
The only reason I think Incredibles 2 is warranted as opposed to cars or Nemo is the sheer world building the first did. There are so many questions I have that I think would be answered in Incredibles 2. Who is Honey? How did the supers get their powers? Do other designers make super suits? I actually think they could make a good little TV show out of it
Ever since it was released in 2004, almost everyone wanted a sequel to the Incredibles and were dissapointed when Cars hit the scene, since they just wanted to see more of the super hero family
Pixar writing challenge, fill in blanks with synopsis provided:
"Once upon a time there was ___. Every day, ___. One day ___. Because of that, ___. Until finally ___."
1) sky man with sky plans
2) a lonely woman who just loves eating turtles
3) the mafia but with bread
I agree with your points about the writing not warranting sequels, and it's with resentment that individual, creative potential is trashed for cash grabs. To a degree, I sort of blame our Overlord Disney's .. ugh.. control over talent/output, especially with Pixar having an amazing team and creative culture.
Not all of Pixar’s “creative” originals are great. Brave and the Good Dinosaur were original and they’re known as some of the worst Pixar movies of all time.
Hmm... what I think is that if the sequel doesn't have enough purpose before it, it shoudln't be made. Toy Story 2 and made because the first movie hinted at the eventuality that one day, Andy would grow up. The entire movie was Woody having to deal with that issue, and being presented with a chance to avoid ever having to make that choice. It was building on themes from the first without inventing them altogether. By contrast, Cars 2 had to completely create a story from scratch and even shift main characters to make it work. Toy Story 2 is often regarded as just as good if not better than the original (at least from the circles I'm in), and if we ignore the idea of sequels altogether, we'd never have gotten it.
The problem is Pixar is choosing to make sequels that don't need to be made. Cars 3, while better than 2, wasn't necessary to the universe. Monster's Unversity was the prequel nobody wanted; most of us wanted a sequel if anything. But even still, the first Monster's Inc left off in a perfect place and didn't need to be followed up on. I agree with your video! I just feel that's a key point to make.
The lonely woman who just loves eating turtles is already a character on Over The Garden Wall, oddly enough. Voiced by Tim Curry no less.
I'd watch the bread mafia movie though. OH! it could be called "Don of the Bread".
Well two new ones popping out
You're totally right, if you wanted to make an even stronger case for Pixar sequels similarities you could have made the same point as Adam/YMS made in his Toy Story 3 review. He essentially points out that TS3 is essentially a narrative and thematic copy of TS2.
I know there's a chance that I could be horribly wrong since the movie's not out yet, but I think the Incredibles is the one pixar movie most deserving of a sequel.
Toy Story 2 and 3, as well Incredibles 2 are the only good sequels (though only TS2 and 3 actually add anything). I confess to never watching the first incredibles in full so I think I'm going to see the sequel as better because there's not really much difference between them. Regardless the other sequels are just competent.
I would love to see an actual Monsters Inc sequel as I always thought that ending greeting between Sulley and Boo could have been taken somewhere else
Who else feels like Big Joel was watching a ton of Rick and Morty around when he recorded the audio for this video?