0 Responses

1. I wasn’t excited by Cars 2. I am less interested in 3. I miss the Pixar company that made new movies and said it wasn’t that interested in doing sequels.

   1. But their third film was “Toy Story 2”.

      1. I would do without Toy Story 2 if that meant no Cars 2. Or 3. Or Monsters University. What drew people to Pixar originally was just that: Originality. Animation grows when new ideas and twists on plot lines are tried. Usually, the only thing that grows when ‘Popular Cartoon #2’ is released is the bank account of the studio that released it. And even that is sort of a trap. How many ‘Shreks’ have there been? How many are you willing to say are good? Or Ice Age? I’ve noticed I tend not to re-watch a movie, animated or not, if it has a by-the-numbers sequel. I remember the bad taste of the sequel better than the delight of the original. And the studio keeps making less and less money from each sequel, and invests less money into their animation department. Unless the story was expressly written for multiple movies, I think we are better off with one and done. Occasionally a sequel is as good, nearly as good, or even better than the original. But that’s not the way to bet. I don’t look at animation as kids fare, I think the best of animation qualifies simply as a good movie. One that many people, not just kids, want to watch again. Very few movies become classics by playing it safe. Sequels, animated or not, is a studio playing it safe.

         1. I really think you are over thinking things. And “Monster University” was not bad.

2. Cars 3 will have a world premiere at Disneyland on Saturday.