Why Pixar's sequel news is both good and bad

By now you'll no doubt be aware that Disney bigwig Bob Iger announced this week that Pixar fans can expect sequels to both 'The Incredibles' and 'Cars/2'.

While the details have proven particularly interesting -- considering the studio's 2014 release hiatus -- I believe this public revelation is both a good and bad thing.

The Good

Firstly, the exciting news is that 'The Incredibles' is receiving a follow-up. As perhaps the single film in Pixar's catalogue that deserves expansion, this comes as very pleasing news. Almost a year ago I speculated on how 'The Incredbiles' was the most worthy Pixar original to warrant a sequel, and I stand by my claim. Brad Bird's creation not only finishes on an open-ended note, but the premise and subsequent story have so much potential for expansion, whether it picks up straight after the first; is a lengthy time after; delves into prequel territory; or even ventures towards a spin-off. With details that Brad Bird's been grafting away at the sequel for some time, it could turn out to be one of Pixar's more interesting sequels to emerge.

The Bad

But with positive news comes the bad, and 'Cars 3' could be just that. For me, 'Cars 2' is undoubtedly Pixar's worst film. The fact that they made a film for kids wasn't the issue, either. As film animators, a child-friendly approach is inevitable; it comes with the territory and via an affiliation with Disney. But, as they've proven year after year, their movies nail it for appealing to both kids and adults. 'Cars 2' disappointingly strips this away and caters exclusively for kids.

Yet the cynic in me suggests an ulterior motive. The 'Cars' franchise, to date, has made over $10 billion(including merchandise). Undeniably, this is incredible, but raises a few questions. Has John Lasseter's self-proclaimed 'passion project' turned into a shameless cash cow? Most critics and fans would argue that 'Cars 2' sees a notable slump in storytelling quality, so is a third simply being churned out to make a shed load of money? Some will argue that as a film studio it is its job (and priority) to first and foremost make money, which is true to an extent.

Profits Over Integrity?

But there was a time when Pixar would bend over for no one, vowing to maintain integrity above anything else -- even money. Ask anyone at Pixar and they'll say the same: they're driven by passion, not money.

'Cars 3' has likely been influenced by Disney, who have no doubt recognised the financial potential a continuation has. But, as a diehard Pixar fan, it's not a film I'm anticipating.

If Pixar can make all of their films up to the birth of the 'Cars' franchise with an all-ages accessibility, why not continue the winning formula? Whether in all his indulgence Lasseter's usual stellar storytelling prowess has become misplaced or if this is their attempt at a ruse by distancing themselves from a pure moneymaking idea is debatable.

Are you as pleased and sceptical as I am over these sequels?

indulges in all genres, with a particular affinity for animation -- specifically Pixar. His favourite films include 'Toy Story', 'Lost In Translation', 'The Shining' and 'Jurassic Park'. For more thoughts on movies and other such frivolity, follow him on Twitter.


Tagged: ,