Toy Story 4: In a Theater Near You in 2017

Of course the announcement of Toy Story 4's eminent release came during an earnings call by Bob Iger. Because, as we all now know, Pixar is nothing more these day's than Disney's ATM.

We all knew it was going to happen, even though Toy Story 3 ended on such a perfect note. Those Toy Story Toons kept the characters alive, and now that the new and old toys all have a young owner for a new generation to grow up with, who's to say this won't be a sort of franchise reboot, introducing the children of the first generation to the amazing (yet to be determined) series.

John Lasster will direct, which is a good thing? I don't know, he's not the John Lasster that made the first Toy Story. He's now the John Lasster that made Cars 2 and forced Luigi's Flying tires on unsuspecting victims in Anaheim, and he's not getting any younger or more creative (and I guess "Frozen" and "Wreck It Ralph" and stuff).

Admittedly, the Toy Story franchise is the only Pixar franchise that has worked. Monsters and Cars both were eh features with an eh-ier sequel in MU's case, and a terrible film that made "Planes 2" look like Citizen Kane in "Cars 2's" case.

As someone who answers "Toy Story" to the question "What is one of your favorite movies?" this announcement is bittersweet. I'm a big fan of not fixing broken things, and this seems like breaking further something that is showing a lot of cracks (Pixar, especially compared to Disney Animation's renaissance, led by none other than John Lasster.)

What do you think? Are you happy MSM is back? What's your favorite type of holiday coffee product? Let me know in the comments and on Twitter!

Wrecking Windows, Fixing Films

The best animated movie to have anything to do with Disney this year? "Tinker Bell: Secret of the Wings." I was going to say "Mars Needs Moms," but that came out in 2011.

THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH WAS A JOKE. Don't stop reading because of it. Also, because I'm a 21-year-old male, I didn't see "Tinker Bell: Secret of the Wings," and because I'm a human being with taste, I didn't see "Mars Needs Moms," so I can't actually tell you if those are good or bad. And with that, I will start saying things I actually mean.



I know it might be Brave of me to say this, but 2012 will be known as the year Walt Disney Animation Studios put out a better movie than Pixar did. That's better than 2011, known as the year that I filmed a better movie on my iPhone of me eating a cheeseburger than the movie Pixar studios released.

That's right, "Wreck It Ralph" was by far a better film than Pixar's "Brave," and honestly, it had more of a Pixar feel to it, too. "Brave" was a fairytale with a princess, "Wreck It Ralph" was "Toy Story" set within the world of video games. I think that's all I need to say to back up that argument.

I've always loved "secret world of" films, like "Toy Story" and now "Wreck It Ralph," where part of the premise is exploring what things do when we humans aren't paying attention to them. "Ralph" is by no means as groundbreaking, funny, or as entertaining as "Toy Story," but I dare say it's the best animated Disney film since "Toy Story 3."

These kind of films create a world within a world, using their own sort of slang, taking the familiar and connecting it all together with a little creativity, and a little ingenuity. Instead of feeling things in her "bones," the character Vanellope Vvon Schweetz feels it in her "code" that she's meant to be a racer in the Mario Kart-esque game "Sugar Rush." I love this kind of thing, and "Wreck It Ralph" is full of it.

Brace yourself, it's time for some plot summary: The film focuses on Ralph, voiced by John C. Reilly, the villain who wrecks things, so Fix It Felix Jr. can then fix things in the 8-bit arcade game named after Felix. Ralph gets tired of sleeping in a literal dump, and ventures off into two other video games, first a Call of Duty-esque first-person-shooter modern 3D game "Hero's Duty," then to Vanellope's "Sugar Rush." Here, in the land of Sugar Rush, Vanellope, a "glitch" in the game, steals Ralph's medal, and the two become enemies that quickly turn into friends. From there, all that character development and plot stuff happens like in most all movies, except for the Indie ones made by artists who are too hip to use a story arch. If you're reading this blog, you'll probably see the movie anyways, and probably already know all of that stuff you just read, anyways. Moving on...


What made this film so great was a mix of character development, gags, humor, and a nice twist at the end that brings everything together. The characters all have their flaws and their strengths, and we get to see them exhibit all parts of their personality, while enjoying some good jokes, and a dedication the the details of the world of video games that does not waiver in thoroughness throughout. The movie modifies a world we're already familiar with, and exploring it with Ralph, Felix, Venellope and Calhoun, the female commander from "Hero's Duty" voiced by Jane Lynch, is a hilarious, fun and at times emotional journey that amounts to one darn good film.

It's no "Up" or "Finding Nemo," but for a film whose only connection to Pixar is John Lasseter, the chief creative officer at both Pixar and the Walt Disney Animation Studios, it will fool those unaware of the separation between the two companies.

Buying New Galaxies, and Creativity

Unless you live under a rock, only care about real news like Hurricane Sandy, or don't have six news apps that all send you push notifications of breaking news at the same time, than you've probably heard: yesterday, Disney acquired Lucasfilm for $4.05 billion.



My first reaction was: "Neat!"

Lucasfilm and Disney have had a very close relationship ever since Star Tours opened at Disney in 1982. Some of the best Star Wars merch I've ever seen or bought has been at a Disneyland. You can find Jedi Mickeys or Donald Duck made up as Darth Maul at gift shops next to Star Tours. Hollywood Studious annually holds Star Wars Weekends, one of the most popular celebrations of the franchise anywhere. The Jedi Training Academy is a popular show, with walk around characters like Darth Vader and a couple of Storm Troopers making daily appearances.

To Disney dies-hards like myself, there won't be much of a transition from Lucasfilm being an independent company to one owned by one of the biggest entertainment companies in the world.

Some are decrying the deal, accusing Disney of being greedy, and predicting that when Disney makes episodes VI, VII and VII, they will ruin the "Star Wars" film franchise.

These people don't know what they're talking about and are hating on Disney because it's the convenient, typical thing to do. When Disney took over Marvel for a similar price, one of first films to come out of the joint venture, "The Avengers," is arguably the best Marvel film to date, and is inarguably the highest grossing. This was because Disney let acclaimed nerd Joss Whedon take over, gave him creative control and trusted him. I foresee Disney doing a similar thing with the coming "Star Wars" films.

So people, stop whining. You will be proven wrong.

Star Tours at Disneyland. (Photo by Preston Carter
Melbourne-Weaver/Main St. Monitor.)

Though I won't associated myself with those whiners, I do have something to whine about myself. My past co-worker while I was in the Disney College program, Patrick Johnson had this to say about the deal on facebook: "The most recognized entertainment company in the world that neglects to capitalize on their own intellectual property. Le sigh." In an article about reactions to the deal by USA Today, they quoted Former Columbia Pictures marketing exec Peter Sealey as saying: "It seems to me that Disney is bankrupt of new ideas so they've just gone out and made another big buy."

This deal will cement Bob Iger's legacy as "the guy who bought all that other stuff." From Pixar, to Marvel, and now Lucasfilm and Avatar Land, Iger has made it clear he is more interested in buying creativity than creating it in house. Pixar has created some of its worst films since being acquired by Disney, most of which were money grubbing sequels. Avatar Land's E-Ticket attraction is rumored to use the same ride mechanism as Soarin' over California.

What Iger has done with the parks, with New Fantasyand and the re-imagining of Disney California Adventure, has been great, but not exactly innovative.

I think acquiring Lucasfilm, Pixar and Marvel are overall good things for Disney, but I look forward to Iger's 2015 planned retirement and hope that his replacement focuses on creating magic inside the company. Iger is, by far, a better CEO than his predecessor Michael Eisner, but at least Eisner had 10 creative years at the beginning.

The First Ten, The Best Ten

Everything good must come to an end.

For Pixar, that fact of life seemed not to apply to its first 10 films. Then they were bought by Disney, John Lasseter took around 30 other jobs on top of his main gig as chief creative officer at the animation studios, and the main vision and values that made the first ten films fantastic was lost in dollar signs and work schedules that wouldn't fit into a 10-day week.

I've written about "Cars 2," and how it ruined the studio's perfect record.  Those with taste can agree that the movie abandoned all of the things that make a Pixar film great (intelligence, wit, originality, lack of pandering). It proved that, maybe after the "Toy Story" franchise, Pixar should avoid sequels (we'll see if they get away with the technicality of making a prequel with "Monster's University").

Originality is where Pixar thrives (and another things "Cars 2" lacked), and I hoped that with the original story of "Brave," the studio would return to to it's pre "Cars 2" back-to-back original hits, "WALL-E" and "Up" (Toy Story 3, though a sequel, was also extremely original).

I was let down.

"Brave" was great, but as many reviewers wrote, held to Pixar standars, it was average to below average. It has a 69/100 score on MetaCritic, meaning the majority of its review are positive. "Toy Story" has a 92. The only Pixar film to have scored lower than "Brave" is, you guessed it, "Cars 2."

The same things that made "Cars 2" a failure also made "Brave" below average. All the hype about "Brave" centered around the fact that it is Pixar's first film with a woman in the lead role. You couldn't escape the comparison's to "The Hunger Game's" Katniss Everdeen . Disney princesses have always taken heat for being damsels in distress who need men to complete them (by people who have too much time to analyze entertainment. To blame a lack of feminine power on Disney is lazy and insulting to women. Independent thought it not exclusively a male trait.) so it started to feel like the story was engineered to create PR buzz. 


When you get down to brass tacks, every Pixar film has the exact same story line. Things are good, a conflict is presented, the characters must go on an adventure, there's a chase scene,  the good guys just barely win, and things end up hunky-dory (The three "Toy Story" films have literally the exact same plot). It's the nuances in both the characters and stories that make the films great, and "Brave" lacked those just as "Cars 2" did before it.

"Cars 2" was made because young boys everywhere eat up "Cars" merchandise like it's free candy laced with nicotine. Then Disney has Pixar make a film with a female princess that can sell merchandise to the other half of the adolescent world? Seems suspicious. And most of all, it seems more like a reaction to criticism than pure innovation that's unaffected by what studio heads feel is popular.


I will now turn to the upcoming (hopefully) original films Pixar will be releasing in the near future: The Good Dinosaur and The Untitled Pixar Movie That Takes You Inside the Mind, along with the 2015 Lee Unkrich film inspired by Die de los Muertos. If they are made without pandering and without consideration of how merchadise will sell, they will be great. If not, they'll still be good, but they won't be truly be Pixar.

Cars 2: My Belated Thoughts

Pixar means many things. Most obviously it's the name of the pioneering film studio in Emeryville, Ca.

 For me, Pixar means much more: quality, excitement, entertainment, wonder, thrill, joy.

And, for the first time ever, it means disappointment. It had to happen, the law of averages tells me. To be fair, I saw it coming, but now that it's here, my acute foresight does not make the pain of seeing an average film that is of the Pixar brand any less searing.

The motifs, the morals and the jokes of the film lead me to believe that the movie is more Disney than it is Pixar. The $10 billion in projected merchandise sales also leads me to this conclusion, as does the special toy sections in Target and Ride Makerz, or anywhere else where money be be exchanged for goods.

Pixar's productions, as with most Disney related films, are about overcoming a difference or obstacle. In "UP," Carl faced living a life without his wife and an unfulfilled dream weighing down on him, "Ratatoullie," a rat that loved to cook; "WALL-E," a robot that could love. With "Cars 2," it’s a red neck truck that gets mistaken as a spy, and in the process, gets rejected by his friend, who wants him to change.

I wanted Mater to change, too. Next time, be a little less of a push over, Lightning! I'm not endorsing rejecting who you are, but if who you are is as unfunny and bland as Tow Mater, change might not be a bad thing. Especially if you're that kind of person/car and you happen to be starring in a movie produced by my favorite studio. In that case, change, and change quickly, preferably into a new, original character that has nothing to do with a sequel. Like say, a red-headed scottish girl. That sounds like a good idea. A one eyed green walking sphere? Don't change into that.

"Cars 2" could have been made by any studio. That emotion that Pixar films elicit, that connection that is made with the characters, the excitement the plots bring, it's always magical. None of that exists in "Cars 2." It's just one stupid, fart/red-neck/ignorant joke after another. There are some hints of humor that remind you that what you're watching, at one point (the PS, and the PPS from Mater, that was funny), had The Business’s most original minds behind it, but the rest of it makes apparent you that they had to hand their baby over at some point to Rumpel Stiltsken. Those 11 films of spun gold had to be paid for. "Toy Story 2" took the necklace, "3" the ring.            

It's a movie made for a specific audience, something that has not been done by Pixar: that's how I see it. Obviously, Lasseter and Co. want to make movies that people enjoy, and have been successful in doing so.  But the secret to that success is that the movies were made for self satisfaction.They're huge film fans making movies that they would like, which seems like an obvious way to make a film. And it's what they did, until Disney took over, made them release the film a year early, and slowly stripped them of their artistic integrity. When I visited the studios late last year, I was informed that the people in the rooms around me were a little peeved, having been forced to put the film out a year early. Their frustration shows. It also lives in me and all others who truly and devotedly love what they do at Pixar.

Here's to waiting for their next original film, "Brave."

Seeing Old Movies in New Way: The Commentary

Christmas is the time of giving and receiving, and I did a bit of both. What I gave isn't that important. I could mention how my gifts are all practical yet thoughtful and fun, but I don't want to brag. Plus, this post is more about what I received.

The "Toy Story" Box Set

Specifically, it's about the trio of "Toy Story" Blu-Ray's I got. Now, I've seen all three films about as many times and as many ways as possible. In 3D, in 2D, on DVD, Sneak Previews, re-releases. Just about every format they've released the films in, I've seen it in. So, the Blu-Ray format was great, but I've seen the films so many times, I could act out just about every scene at this point. But, I had these new shiny discs in this fancy format, so I had to find a way to watch these classic, familiar films that would excite me. 

Now, I know I'm not the first to discover the new-fangled director's commentary bonus feature, yet I've found something new in something old.

Like I said, I've seen each of the "Toy Story" films enough to have memorized most of the lines from all three films. I'm not someone who typically likes to view a movie multiple times. So, when getting these new Blu-Ray copies of the movies, I decided to turn on the commentary for the first time and see what the people who made the films have to say about them. 

Well, it turns out they have quite a bit to say, and all of it is superbly fascinating. On the orignal "Toy Story," the commentary features not just the Director John Lasster, but also Co-Writer Andrew Stanton, Supervising Animator Pete Docter, Art Director Ralph Eggleston, Supervising Technical Director Bill Reeves and Producers Ralph Guggenheim and Bonnie Arnold. That may seem like one too many cooks in the kitchen, but the group makes it work. Having been the first feature length film from Pixar, its brightest minds worked on the film, and it's a real treat listening to them discuss the obstacles overcome to making the first full length computer animated film. Think of if we could watch "Snow White" with a commentary by Walt Disney. It's not the same, but it's close. 

With "Toy Story 2," the commentary is provided by Director John Lasseter, Co-Directors Lee Unkrich & Ash Bannon and Co-Writer Andrew Stanton, once again giving you insight from the top talent at Pixar. Since "Toy Story 2" was the studios third film, they often discuses the different computer models their recycled from "A Bug's Life" and the original "Toy Story." Pixar is also known for its easter eggs, many of which are pointed out in the commentary. 

"Toy Story 3" takes a different approach, leaving out Director Lee Unkrich, this time featuring Supervising Animator Bobby Podesta, Supervising Animator Mike Venturini, Production Designer

Bob Pauley,  Head of Story Jason Katz and Supervising Technical Director Guido Quaroni. And, with the Blu-Ray, it's on the Bonus Features disk, instead of accompanying the film on the feature disk. That took a couple of Google searches and a argument (Which I lost) with my mom to find out. After watching the first two films with relatively the same people talking about similar things, it was great getting a different perspective on how the film is made. Being the most modern Pixar film,  and having come 11ish years after "Toy Story 2," the advancements in technology have been tremendous, and there's really no one better to talk about that occurrence than the people so heavily involved. Despite being people who work in front of computers fulltime, they've all got a great sense of humor, and are a joy to listen to.

Overall, all three of the films have a very unique commentary, and all three are very enlightening. They probably aren't very interesting to someone who is only watching the films for the second or third time, but for a Pixar veteran, they're a great way to give new light to a classic film.  

Next up: The "WALL-E" Blu-Ray coming from Netfilx, so I can get the commentary on Blu-Ray without having to make my mom buy it. I can't wait!

Cars 2 and Pixar's Perfect Record

Prior to every Pixar movie's release, all the critics speculate on if that movie will put an end to Pixar's perfect 11-11 record. What Pixar has done is unprecedented, creating 11 films that have mass approval from both critics and normal folk like you and me, many of them simultaneously winning awards and breaking box office records. It's unparalleled in the film industry, and it's not something that can last.

Cars 2: 12 for 12?

I mean, it could last, I don't doubt Pixar one bit, but the way things are going on the business side, with Disney pushing for franchises like "Cars," "Toy Story" and "Monsters Inc." (which, all coincidentally, have very appealing merchandise), I don't know how much longer Pixar will be able to do the things they want to do.

Look at the second "Cars" film for example. Pixar was on track to release summer of 2012. Then Disney decided that they wanted the film a year earlier, forcing everyone at Pixar to try and speed up an extremely slow, tedious process. Pixar didn't get to do what they wanted to. It's not fact, but I would dare to say that Disney wanted the film a year earlier to build up hype for California Adventure's new Cars Land, set to open sometime in 2012.

Now, I know that Lasseter and Co. over in Emeryville have a strict standard of "If the stories not there, we won't make the movie." I doubted him a little with "Toy Story 3," just because, coming off such great original stories like "Up" and WALL-E," releasing a sequel seemed like Pixar was taking a break. I was dead wrong. But "Toy Story" has always been Pixar's flagship franchise. "Cars," not so much.

Disney has officially released a full length trailer for the new "Cars" film, and I'm not going to be a naysayer and say I didn't like it for the sake of my argument. It looked pretty good. It's got the classic characters of Mater and Lighting McQueen back, and the news ones, one of them an english James Bond style car voiced by Michael Caine.

Yet, as Pixar gets bigger and bigger, and Disney relies on them more heavily to be the one consistently good part of their film department, they will try to exert more control. There's no doubt Pixar's people know what they're doing, and will go one spinning cinematic perfection. It's just a countdown to when Disney's greed usurps Pixar's control and maims their golden goose.

Toy Story 3: Deserving of 2010 Best Picture Oscar

November has begun, which means many things for us Disney devotees. Christmas decorations will start to go up at Disneyland, Thanksgiving pins are up for trading, and a third thing that Disney doesn't usually participate in, Oscar Season, begins.

Now that Disney has shed its more art-influenced studio, Miramax, the Oscars has been something that the studio has little to do with. Anything distributed directly by the Disney studios–generally PG and G films centered around more child-centric themes–don't even register on the Academy's radar.

On the rare occasion, there's a nomination like Johnny Depp as Capt. Jack Sparrow with Best Actor in a Leading Role nomination for "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl." Or the 1991 Best Picture nomination for "Beauty and the Beast."

More often, Disney movies win the less glamourous technical awards. Though, during Walt's tenure, the studio won a gaggle of Golden nude men.

Recently, with the Best Picture category expanding to 10 nominees from five, Pixar films have been getting a little more attention from the Academy. Their shorts have won a number of Oscars, and their features have won the Best Animated Feature statues, but the big one has eluded them, despite their near-perfect record with the critics.

"WALL-E," with it's silent filme-esque opening 20 minutes, was by far one of the best pictures of 2008, but the bias The Academy has towards animated "children's films" left it out of the party. Also, many actors, who make up a large part of The Academy feel computer animation threatens their livelihood. Ahh, ignorance.

"Up" was nominated last year, but lost to "The Hurt Locker." Predicable: yes. Fair: nope.

This year though, according to the Financial Times, Disney is launching a huge Oscar campaign for "Toy Story 3." I find it a little ridiculous that you have to campaign for a film to win Best Picture, the best film should win because it's the best, but alas, that is the process.

I'm glad Disney has realized that Pixar is producing some the best films of our time, animated or live action. "WALL-E" and "Up" were both good enough to win Best Picture, and "Toy Story 3," with its dark, dramatic themes and tear-inducing ending, has all the elements of a Best Picture. Some have speculated that it could win the Oscar, not only because it's a great film, but because its two predecessors were also Oscar worthy, a body of work Oscar. If it wins, it will be the one of three sequels to win Best Picture. The others: "The Godfather: Part II", and "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," which won, most likely, for the Lord of the Rings body of work.

Maybe a high profile Oscar campaign will give the film the extra boost it needs. Hopefully The Academy will pull its head out of its live action behind and give the Best Picture Oscar to the film that is indeed Best Picture, no politics involved.

Out of "Toy Story 3," "WALL-E" and "UP," which film would you give the Best Picture Oscar to?

Visiting the Pixar Studios: the Best Part of Disney

Living in Northern California, it often feels like you're in the ugly step-child part of the state. Southern California has everything, from Hollywood, to beaches that aren't freezing cold, to Disneyland the the Disney Studios in Burbank.

Me with Luxo Jr. at the Pixar Studios. It was cheesy, but I wore
my Woody backpack and Disney family museum t-shirt. I had
to get into the spirit. 

Though the southern part of the state may have be flashier, the north doesn't lack in substance. We've got Apple's headquarters, the Disney Family Museum, and the best part of Disney's movie division, Pixar Studios in Emeryville, CA, just outside of Oakland. Step-child: maybe. Ugly: definitely not.

I was lucky enough this past August, through a friend of a friend who's now my friend, to get a tour of the parts of the Pixar studios that aren't off limits (AKA, everything that's not carpeted).

They were constructing a new building when I visited, so I didn't get to go through the glamourous front gates, but instead through the back. The first thing I saw when I got on the lot was a Tesla charging up. Pretty fancy.

I got my name tag, found a parking spot and made my way to the front doors of the studios. It was here I met my host, who pointed out to me the window of John Lasseter's office. I was window-star-struck, probably for the first time.

I was then taken into the building, which had a huge wide open hardwood-floored area. On the left and the right were the wings of the building where the people at Pixar got down to business, and where I was not allowed. I then went up the stairs to the second level, where concept art, models and various other things used to bring the ideas of Pixar's genius to the silver screen. It was striking to see the beautiful art, intricate models and complicated storyboards, most of them from the most recent release, Toy Story 3. I also caught a glimpse of Peter Sohn, the man who's face was Russel in Up's inspiration. The resemblance was glaringly apparent.

I was then shown the screening theater, where I have never seen a more vibrant picture and heard better sound, and I was only in there for a few minutes. It was then on to the hall of fame, where all the famous actors who have worked on the Pixar movies left their signature. Larry the Cable guy signs every time he visits.

After this, it was lunch time, where I had many delicious options to choose from. Pixar is known for its amazing chefs, and if that's not your thing, there's an always-open cereal bar. It's a big hit with the employees. Speaking of employees, all the interns were dressed up like 80's glam rock stars, adding to uniqueness of the experience.

Time for the gift shop, a small room filled with great, very affordable merchandise. I'm used to the high prices of Disneyland where the shirts are all $20, and that's a bargain. Here, I got 6 shirts, a couple of stickers and a handful of only-available-at-Pixar posters, all for around $60. The woman running the store and I struck up a quick friendship, as the atmosphere at the studios seems to breed friendliness.

My tour was over, and I had one last thing to do. Take a picture with the Luxo Jr. Statue.