Jason Segel talks The Muppets and his inspiration

[Drtooth]

Yup. Madagascar was intended to resemble the old Golden Books. It was a little hit-or-miss.

It also seemed to be an experiment in moving away from the overly detailed pastel and almost rigidly realistic look of Shrek and Sharktale. it had a bounce to it that seemed like it was imperfected but still worked. The sequel was decent, but only really for making very obvious fun of The Lion King. Much better than that dreadful sitcom they tried doing. Why can't they release Toonsylvania on DVD? But Madagascar 3, I'm well... I'm gonna skip that one.

I liked parts of Hedge, Open Season and even the original Ice Age, but it's the storytelling (along with the most innovative technology) that makes Pixar superior...in most cases. I don't write the mental blank check that many others do considering them.

OTH seems to be the turning point film for Dreamworks. It seemed to have an actual soul to it, and it really seemed to have a "Silly Creatures" look at human consumerism while Wall*E (as much as I enjoyed it) seemed a little harder and harsher and a bit more preachy. Still, I think the concept of a company getting so big that it rules the world was a concept that we should ALL take notice of. That said, Sony sucks. Cloudy sucked. And it sucked all the magic out of the story.

I hope Pixar steers away from the sequels soon. They're watering down their own magic.

When it comes to Toy Story, something tells me they did right by making a trilogy, even though Disney kinda made them make the second, and Eisner's threats made them want to take on a third. Really... search on the internet and look up the concepts for the third one. You'll cry. And not in a good way.

The first one I just can't look at the same wonderment anymore, since I think they really out did themselves twice. A VERy hard thing to do, since even if you have 2 good movies in a trilogy, the third one will inevitably have something wrong with it, even if the second one does. the first one somehow was sibling rivalry plus what it meant to be a toy (near the later half). I find the third one a fitting end of an era and a nice ending to the story, giving it a bittersweet angle...

That said, I'm really not all that enthused about Cars 2, and I kinda dug the first one. Cars, however, was a MAJOR money maker in the toy department though... especially after the dreadful luck they hard marketing Ratatouille. I'd love a Incredibles continuation (or better yet, a Frozone one off/spinoff movie) but the Boom comics are enough for me. Ditto their Monsters Inc... even tied in the Toy Story universe in there.

Back to the topic...I wonder if the new Muppet movie willgo plural, like "The New Muppets Movie" or "The Great Muppets Adventure". Not keen on the branding tactic.

I'd much rather them NOT say the "New" Muppet movie. If there's one thing I've always hated in the annuls of animation it's the "New" tagline. The "New" adventures of Mighty Mouse... the "New" Adventures of Batman... Brand Spankin' "New" Doug. They ain't new forever and not new when they're in reruns. Didn't even care for the "Guaranteed Brand New" line in MT's theme. The "Greatest Muppet Movie EVER" bit bugs me as a "this is how people talk at the moment" way, though. Great Muppet Adventure has a ring, though one too similar to Great Muppet Caper. And Cheapest Muppet Movie has a Monty Pythonish ring to it that would seem to turn off more causal family movie goers.... This is a toughy. I'd give the movie the name The Muppets: Scramble for the Muppet Studios. Something like that, hinting that other films will happen in the future...

 

[frogboy4]

I'd much rather them NOT say the "New" Muppet movie. If there's one thing I've always hated in the annuls of animation it's the "New" tagline. The "New" adventures of Mighty Mouse... the "New" Adventures of Batman... Brand Spankin' "New" Doug. They ain't new forever and not new when they're in reruns. Didn't even care for the "Guaranteed Brand New" line in MT's theme. The "Greatest Muppet Movie EVER" bit bugs me as a "this is how people talk at the moment" way, though. Great Muppet Adventure has a ring, though one too similar to Great Muppet Caper. And Cheapest Muppet Movie has a Monty Pythonish ring to it that would seem to turn off more causal family movie goers.... This is a toughy. I'd give the movie the name The Muppets: Scramble for the Muppet Studios. Something like that, hinting that other films will happen in the future...

I just threw the "new" in there to differentiate that title from the classic Muppet Movie, but not as a serious title. My point of concern is with the plural branding of Muppets instead of just plain Muppet. I mean sure, it works in something like The Muppets Take Manhattan, but wouldn't with The Great Muppets Caper.

 

[Mupp]

I hope Pixar steers away from the sequels soon. They're watering down their own magic.

Well, not necessarily.

For example, there will be a Monsters Inc sequel in 2012, and the first film was kind of open ended. So a sequel was almost inevitable.

The thing is, people get can get really attached to these characters, and they often want to see them again in new stories.

If the stories are strong, then I don't see a problem with it.

On that note, I have faith in Cars 2. Pixar will NOT release a movie if the story has problems. Toy Story 2 is a testament to that.
If anyone has ever heard the "warts and all" story of Toy Story 2, then they know what I mean.

 

[frogboy4]

Well, not necessarily.

For example, there will be a Monsters Inc sequel in 2012, and the first film was kind of open ended. So a sequel was almost inevitable.

The thing is, people get can get really attached to these characters, and they often want to see them again in new stories.

If the stories are strong, then I don't see a problem with it.

On that note, I have faith in Cars 2. Pixar will NOT release a movie if the story has problems. Toy Story 2 is a testament to that.
If anyone has ever heard the "warts and all" story of Toy Story 2, then they know what I mean.

That can be said of all sequels. Pixar was always above doing that except with Toy Story.

 

[Mupp]

That can be said of all sequels. Pixar was always above doing that except with Toy Story.

That's just it. As we have seen, sequels are not necessarily a bad thing.

So by saying that Pixar was "above doing that" is implying that they are doing something dirty, and that all sequels are bad, and that's not true.

And whoever said that by making sequels to their other films besides Toy Story meant that they were lowering their standards? That's an odd assumption to make.

If the story and overall quality is good, then they are NOT lowering their standards.

The very IDEA of a sequel is not necessarily a bad thing. If a company wants to do a sequel, that does not necessarily make them "low".

 

[frogboy4]

That's just it. As we have seen, sequels are not necessarily a bad thing.

So by saying that Pixar was "above doing that" is implying that they are doing something dirty, and that all sequels are bad, and that's not true.

And whoever said that by making sequels to their other films besides Toy Story meant that they were lowering their standards? That's an odd assumption to make.

If the story and overall quality is good, then they are NOT lowering their standards.

The very IDEA of a sequel is not necessarily a bad thing. If a company wants to do a sequel, that does not necessarily make them "low".

Sequels aren't dirty. They are just hit-or-miss and usually, not always, done hastily. Pixar used to be known for their continually fresh ideas that weren't dependent on sequels. Now, that seems to be all they're doing and it's a shame. I understood the first Toy Story sequel and the new one is good too, but both are unnecessary. The first film is neatly contained.

Ultimately, Pixar has only made 2 sequels in 15 years, but will make 2 more in the next couple years. That's a drastic increase and that makes me think it has more to do with the bottom line than the quality of the ideas. Not that they won't be quality. We know they will. There's not a film they've made that wouldn't have a successful sequel, but they've skipped doing so this far. That's part of what made them so special. It set them apart from everybody else. Not only were they pushing forward in technology, but they were always working on new ideas. I'm sure Monsters 2 will be good, maybe even superior to the first one, but it's still a retread. It’s safe. And it’s what everybody else is doing. That’s why they’ve lost some shine in my eyes.

Cars 2...well, I get it. I didn't like the film, but it's a merchandising no-brainer and a guaranteed money-maker. It just seems so cynical.

And most of all…people really want an Incredibles sequel first. I must admit to be among them even though I look down on sequels. Haha for my hypocrisy there . Still, I do see that as more of a Brad Bird film than a Pixar one. It’s really their one film that is vastly different than the others.

 

[beaker]

I just saw Get Him To The Greek, so I definitely can only imagine what kind of inventive writing and delivery the Stoller/Segal team will have. As long as it has smart writing, is both timely and classic(maybe Scooter is updating his facebook/twitter/youtube in one scene?) and has that music and magic, more giddy I could not be.

 

[Drtooth]

Ultimately, Pixar has only made 2 sequels in 15 years, but will make 2 more in the next couple years. That's a drastic increase and that makes me think it has more to do with the bottom line than the quality of the ideas. Not that they won't be quality. We know they will. There's not a film they've made that wouldn't have a successful sequel, but they've skipped doing so this far. That's part of what made them so special. It set them apart from everybody else. Not only were they pushing forward in technology, but they were always working on new ideas. I'm sure Monsters 2 will be good, maybe even superior to the first one, but it's still a retread. It’s safe. And it’s what everybody else is doing. That’s why they’ve lost some shine in my eyes.

Cars 2...well, I get it. I didn't like the film, but it's a merchandising no-brainer and a guaranteed money-maker. It just seems so cynical.

Problem with Cars 2 is that they had to bump it up in production because of Newt's plot being poached. I don't mind a Cars 2, but the plot doesn't really impress me... Mater being confused for a secret agent? Sounds like a ripe idea for a comic book or a short film... but as a full 90 minute + movie?

I have to disagree on Toy Story. I like the first one just fine, but even taking technological advancements out of the equation, it seems the story writing has matured quite a bit. Plus, it really was Disney's idea for them to make the second as a DTV project, and TS3 was definately a challenge that Pixar took Eisner up on, threatening to make one WITHOUT Pixar. Even if the stories weren't good, it's not like they had all that much of a choice for the second, and the third... well, they wanted to prove they could make something a LOT better than a lacklust Island of Misfit Toys movie.

Cars 2 does seem very merchandise driven. I don't think of how MI could continue (Boom did a great job there, I highly recommend that one). And Ellen is whining that there's no Finding Nemo 2... understandable, since it must've been a fun character to perform... but is that a justifiable basis on making a second film? Incredibles DOES deserve a sequel the most, I completely agree. There's so much that was left open, and I'm kicking myself for not keeping up on the Boom comics (but that's a monetary thing... I wouldn't be able to keep up Darkwing Duck and both Muppet comics... and Fraggle Rock's return). Heck, I think Incredibles had better concepts than Watchmen... and I don't even mean the movie. It was a very dark concept, a super villain killing all the other heroes so he could be one. Pixar's the only one with the fortitude to pas that one off as a kid's movie and survive.

Sequels ARE a tricky thing. I've seen second films better than the first (BTTF 2... at least in my mind), sequels that don't hold up one bit (TMNT II for example)... and third movies better than the previous (but ONLY with the third Star Wars prequel)... I've even seen ones that came out after the cartoon version was popular that somehow felt they needed to be the cartoon, but threw out cartoon continuity (Ghostbusters 2, Men in Black 2 especially). You either get people who are hungry for the characters to come back or get the general feeling they're doing it only because of the money. Heck, Dark Knight was a better film in most areas than Batman Begins. Did a lot better at the box office too.

But I think the real thing you're getting at is reference to the fact Disney had those hit or miss (often miss) DTV (and sometimes theatrical) sequels of movies that didn't need them. I though Lion King 2 was excellent, the Third Aladdin was good, but mostly for Robin returning as the Genie (storywise, I kinda liked the second one better). But the others were superficial in most cases. Jungle Book 2 was outright garbage... even without the fact they couldn't use Louie... if they didn't have to add those lame kids into the plot, it would have at least been enjoyable. Had they had an older Mowgli maybe it would have worked... I'm glad Disney stopped them. or rather Pixar stopped them. Though, I really wanted the Hercules 2 movie they planned, as it was to deal with the ORIGINAL Hercules film concept.

 

[Mupp]

But I think the real thing you're getting at is reference to the fact Disney had those hit or miss (often miss) DTV (and sometimes theatrical) sequels of movies that didn't need them.

Yes, I agree. There's no doubt about that.

Most of Disney's direct to video sequels have been pure garbage.
And on top of that, most of them have had horrible animation.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame 2 was garbage, and it looked hideous. The opening shot (a POV shot looking inside a huge bell) looked like it was animated by someone still in school. The perspective changes in the shot were terrible and distracting.

The good news is, as you noted, that Disney has stopped doing DTV sequels. The Little Mermaid 3 was the last one.

The Tinker Bell movies are in a different category. But I have seen them (except the most recent one) and the stories have been pretty good. John Lasseter has made sure that they treat these movies with respect.

The point is, this is Pixar we're talking about. Just becuase they are making a couple of sequels doesn't mean that they have run out of ideas. Regardless of why they are making them, the important thing is that they will make a quality project.
They killed themselves to get Toy Story 2 delivered on time pushing animators to their limits by adding special effects and changing story elements even after much of it was animated.
And I still shutter to think that if they hadn't taken the time to fix things, instead of Jessie, today we would have Senorita Cactus.
And last I heard, something similar is happening with Cars 2. Originally, Lasseter was not going to direct it, but then he went to help work on the story problems, so who knows? Now he might very well have a director credit on the film, and perhaps the storyline has changed since the last time we heard about the premise.

As I said before, some people would LOVE to see these characters come back in new stories.
That was one of the many issues of Disney's DTV sequels, nobody wanted to see a sequel to films like Lady and the Tramp or Cinderella.

So, I don't have a problem with Pixar making a couple of sequels.

Still, its a shame about Newt.

 

[Drtooth]

The Tinker Bell movies are in a different category. But I have seen them (except the most recent one) and the stories have been pretty good. John Lasseter has made sure that they treat these movies with respect.

I really like the idea of them softening up on non-movie sequel DTV's (as I have to restate this is actually a comic book based movie), but I think that's a field that doesn't get the play it should. There are a lot of DTV movie type projects that they could be doing in that aspect. I really want them to take a look at the Paperinik/PK/Duck Avenger projects from Italy (same country that Tinkerbell Adventures came from). Plus, it would be a smashing way to give older fans some closure with some of their older shows as some sort of anniversary/reunion movies. The Disney Afternoon characters are dying to be reanimated again. Plus, it would also be a great outlet for more Mickey projects for older kids, so they don't have to just keep him as a preschool series.

That was one of the many issues of Disney's DTV sequels, nobody wanted to see a sequel to films like Lady and the Tramp or Cinderella.

Well... as far as the Lady and the Tramp sequel is concerned, it was another film based off a comic book, but one that most people forgot about. Scamp was a comic book star at some point, and I don't think they made that too clear, making it a cheapquel instead of really getting to the heart of the comics. Now, I only read a couple, and they aren't quite my favorite, but it seems that was a well they were trying to get into. We need more animated projects based on comics.

Still, its a shame about Newt.

That's really why they're killing themselves over Cars 2, isn't it? Dreamworks poaching them is one thing...you expect it, but they have moved on... but come on. Lionsgate? Blue Sky? Do we even care if Lionsgate makes a crappy CGI film?