Talk:Pixar/Archive 1

message: Regarding the Geri's Game graphic at the bottom of the page, 348KB for a 423x280 JPEG file is a bit excessive, when it should be 1/8th the size.  Bit of an issue for us dialup users. Rabit 19:47, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely spotted! It turns out that the user who uploaded it mistakenly uploaded a Windows BMP with a changed extension. It was plain luck that web browsers detected the proper file type without the guidance of mime types. I compressed it as jpeg and replaced the image. It is now ~40 KiB. — David Remahl 20:29, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Graphic

message: I'm intrigued by the factoid that many Pixar titles were followed by a Dreamworks animated film using the same setting (approximately - some examples were in production simultaneously).  I'm drafting a paragraph about that, but I recognize it could appear as POV or otherwise controversial.  So this is a heads-up to see if there's any discussion before I make the edit.
As with other subjects that are equally about two other references, I plan a new short article with links from each of Pixar and Dreamworks.  The intrinsic interest is that it illustrates about how the business works, not that it criticizes Dreamworks.
The facts:
*Toy Story followed by Small Soldiers
*A Bug's Life followed by Antz
*Monsters Inc followed by Shrek
*Finding Nemo followed by Shark Tale
*Ratatouille to be followed by Flushed Away (they are both about rats)
Glenn6502 15:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting. Ideally, you should point to some reference (an article in a film magazine, business paper, academic essay or something like that) that notes the similarities of Pixar's and Dreamworks' movies.. Otherwise it might be construed as original research... — David Remahl 15:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: So? What's wrong with that? --Wack'd About Wiki 16:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, this is just the normal Hollywood way: Managers too cowardly enough to decide, so they sheepishly do what others do, even in preproduction. That why we had two volcano movies (Dante's Peak + Volcano), two Asteroid movies (Deep Impact and Armageddon) etc. It's an interesting observation, but not too special, actually. See To Live and Die in L.A.. Peter S. 22:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeat after me, everyone. "DREAMWORKS IS EVIL" A•N•N•Afoxlover     PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pixar - Dreamworks connection

message: The article states (and I've heard it from other sources as well) that Disney had a 5 picture deal with Pixar.  Disney also asked them to do Toy Story 2 as a direct-to-video sequel, but decided to make it a full-length feature when they saw how good the early work looked.  There was a big fight over this: Pixar claimed TS2 was part of the 5-picture deal, Disney said it didn't count since it was a sequel.  So discounting that picture, the following films were made under the Disney/Pixar alliance:
#Toy Story
#Bug's Life
#Monsters Inc.
#Finding Nemo
#The Incredibles
But, the article goes on to state that Cars (which looked really stupid from the theater trailers) would be Disney & Pixar's last joint venture.  Huh?  That would be number six by my count.  I don't think it is wrong since the trailer is on Disney's web site, but how does that work?  A five picture deal yielding six (or seven, depending on how you count) movies?  What's the deal? — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:15, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
: The five-picture deal was signed in 1997, after the first Toy Story. And, yeah, that Cars trailer looked lame. —tregoweth 02:17, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
::As for TS2, that was not part of the agreement since it was origanally to be DTV (direct to video). --Wack'd About Wiki 21:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What gives?

message: Why does everyone think Cars looks lame? It looks awesome to me. YOu probably said that about the other Pixar films too when you saw their teasers. --Bawpcwpn
:No, I thought all the other movies—judging by their trailers—looked great.  And so far, they all have been.  Cars, looking like it's based on NASCAR, something I have less than no interest in, looks lame.  Though I thought the animation looked as good as any done by Pixar, the whole plot looked stupid.  If I loved NASCAR, I'd probably think differently.  However, this is just an opinion, and I hope I'm proved wrong.  I'd love it if Pixar could make another home run on this picture. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:10, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I think the Cars trailer looks just sorta boring, but just because it's Pixar I think it could still be really good. -- QQQ (6-11-05)
:I've seen it now, and it is really good. QQQ (6-10-06)
If the deal closes before June, is it likely that Cars could be offical Disney canon?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by an unknown user.
What do you mean, Official Disney Canon?  IMO, since PIXAR now has complete control again of it's own films (while under the BIG Name of Disney), I would never consider it to be "Disney".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by a different unknown user.
The links to John Lasseter seem to be broken.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.201.23.10 (talk • contribs) .
:The reason why Cars look lame, is NASCAR. The worldwide audience isn't interested on NASCAR. No offense to NASCAR fans. 172.200.141.131 (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cars

message: I've looked all over The Incredibles, and I can't find the Pizza Planet truck anywhere.  Could someone tell me where it is in the movie? --KoopaTroopa211 02:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, unless *YOU* can prove it's not in there, you should not be removing the info. The Pixar team has stated (in the commentary track, IIRC) that the truck is in there, and I recall seeing it. I don't have the time at the moment to check this, as I'm at work, but I certainly am willing to take their word for it. TheRealFennShysa 17:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The movie doesn't take place at any identifiable time period; if anything, I would say at least the eighties given Bob's fancy new car, Vi's clothes, and (I've heard) Vi owning some CDs.  Powers T 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditions 

message: Is there anywhere the revenue and employee data for the infobox be found for Pixar? — Wackymacs 18:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue and Employees 

message: Since this article already exists I think it would be more prudent to simply add the details of the transaction in here rather than create a whole new article (Disney-Pixar Studios).  James084 21:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pixar is now officially merged with Walt Disney Feature Animation; Pixar and WDFA should be merged into the Disney-Pixar Studios, which is the new name for both. --Speedway 21:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The deal has been agreed and announced, but it hasn't closed (which might take several months).
Until then, Pixar will continue to be a separate company, and the corresponding
wikipedia disney-pixar article merger should be held off.
Bwithh 21:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. It makes no sense to merge all the historical content from Walt Disney Feature Animation and Pixar into one article. It's not as if it were simply the same company going through a name change. --FuriousFreddy 02:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep separate — Pixar has a history separate and distinct from whatever will come from the merge.  Once the merge has been completed, then the history of Pixar as a separate entity will end.  It will be best to keep the separate articles after that because of the separate histories up to that point.  There is plenty of precedent for doing this as there are a lot of companies that no longer exist that have articles.  (See Amiga, Commodore International and Escom.) Val42 05:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep separate. All the historical content of this article should stay here. Any new addition should go to Disney-Pixar Studios. Mushroom 08:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep Separate - As previously stated, just because Pixar will cease to operate autonomously in the future doesn't mean it has no history of its own. Steve McLinden 15:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep Separate - Same comment as Mushroom's above.  Kowloonese 19:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Suggestion 

message: As of today's earnings announcement, this has been reported in the business press:
:Iger said Disney would release about two Pixar films each year, an increase over Pixar's earlier goal of about one per year. Pixar will take over production of "Toy Story 3," a sequel that Disney's in-house animators had been working on, Iger said. Bloomberg Article
Since we already know John's opinion on how these characters and potential sequels should be handled, the question stands (and I'm sure it will come out in the next few days/weeks):  
:a) is Toy Story 3 officially dead per earlier reports about Lasseter not wanting to continue production on the Circle 7 version and killing the project with the Disney/Pixar merger and this Iger quote is just the official "we're passing the project over to Pixar" line even though we all know it's dead?
:b) is Toy Story 3 officially on track with a new story by Lasseter (work to be done by either Pixar or Circle 7)?
:c) is Toy Story 3 back on track with the original story (work to be done by either Pixar or Circle 7)? 
SpikeJones 03:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toy Story 3 update? 

message: Since Ratatouille opens on June 29, 2007 (which I'm a wee bit worried about due to it being about a rat who likes French food, there's not a lot revealed to it), what will Pixar do in 2008 and beyond. 
I heard tell that a The Incredibles 2 will come out, but THQ already did that as spin-off videogame. Pixar is probably staying off sequels, because Toy Story 2 is their only one. It's possible a new original idea will emerge. 
Although Pixar resided from Ray Gunn, is it still being made? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.60.206.106 (talk • contribs) .
According to IMDB, TS3 is going to be about a recall on the Buzz Lightyear toys, and them being sent back to Taiwan, and his friends rescuing him.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dietzcasey (talk • contribs) .
:If you read the Toy Story 3 article, you'll see that we have that information already, and it's entirely possible that the plot will be completely different now that production has shifted to the Pixar team.  Powers 19:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pixar future films 

message: Regarding the removal of the sentence about Wallace Shawn from John Ratzenberger's paragraph in the article -- the two are not in the same league regarding "also appearing in a number of Pixar films".   John has played different characters in each film and has had parts written specifically for him.  Wallace has only voiced two different characters -- one in The Incredibles, and Rex the Dinosaur (appearing in TS1, TS2, and the outtakes!!! of Monsters).   Adding that "Wallace Shawn also appears in a number of Pixar films" is misleading when compared to what John has done, and also a slap in the face by not mentioning Joe Ranft, who *has* voiced in every Pixar film and is missing from this article. SpikeJones 12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joe Ranft didn't do any voices in Monsters Inc. or the Indcredibles.24.29.74.132 17:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: then IMDB and other sources have this information wrong.  Once those sources are updated and the information about Joe's participation in those films is removed, then we'll update this article correctly for you.  Cheers!  SpikeJones 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that claim. In Monsters Inc., when the news reporters are talking to random monsters about a reported human sightning, there is a many-eyed monster who says "It's true! I saw the whole thing!" This monster sounds like Wheezy the Penguin, so it was Ranft. I haven't identified his role in The Incredibles, but he is in the "Additional Voices" part of the credits, so he must have been in it. RMS Oceanic 07:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wallace Shawn 

message: Any thoughts on how to cleanup the duplicate information regarding "Pixar Traditions", such as "Cameo Appearances" listing the same info as that listed under "Pizza Planet Truck"?   Also, do appearances by characters/items from other films in the end credits/outtakes count as true appearances in the actual film?  If this trend (hopefully) continues, then we're going to end up listing things such as "mouse versions of Woody/Buzz/Nemo/Sully/Lightning/Flik/Dash appear in Ratatouille", and the year after that we'll be saying "xxxxxxx versions of Woody/Buzz/Nemo/Sully/Lightning/Flik/Dash/Ratatouille appear in zzzzzz", etc.  Seems like a bit of overkill to me.  We can keep and expand slightly the description of the cameo tradition, but inclusion of each and every one from each film -- assuming it's information worth keeping -- should be on each film's individual page instead of on the Pixar page. SpikeJones 11:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate Information 

message: HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER?! THE SHORT FILM SECTION OF IT IS POORLY ORGANIZED IN THAT ORDER!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.165.138.45 (talk • contribs) .
: .  And please don't shout.  Powers 03:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!

message: This section has sprung up in the middle of the history section. It was entered in in one edit by an anonymous editor. It is not written in an encyclopedic manner, does not clearly state its sources and is possibly biased. I was tempted to blank it, but I wanted to see if anyone could verify its authenticity. RMS Oceanic 19:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Thanks for doing that. I just didn't want to seem too revert-happy. RMS Oceanic 19:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Admittedly the earlier entry was not well-written, but it contained accurate information.  See the reference - Pixar is under investigation for back-dating stock options for the CEOs of the company. Unless you think criticisms of the company are irrelevant, that information should remain in the Wikipedia entry. --Rcragun 18:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pixar Criticisms 

message: According to the DVD extras on Howl's Moving Castle, Pixar was the one handling the English dub.  Does anyone have more information about this?  Have they worked on any other previous Ghibli dubs/are they planning to work on future releases? Tiakalla 03:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work on Ghibli production for American release? 

message: I thought blog entries -- especially blog entries that all point back to each other as the source -- don't constitute enough fact for inclusion in WK.  Have we gotten anything confirmed from Disney or other official news outlet yet on WALL-E (or however it's spelled this week)? SpikeJones 04:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody please give an official source for this information! --211.26.122.82 09:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As we did with all the W.A.L.-E. pages that had been created earlier this year, I propose deleting that page and RV all the references here later today... unless someone can provide some official announcement or reference that doesn't come from a blog post.SpikeJones 13:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  And since nobody came forward with official information (and as  WK is not a crystal ball per WP:NOT), here you go....   An article that you have been involved in editing, Wall-E (film), has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall-E (film). Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --SpikeJones 16:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for doing that. Are you saying that there has been a previous rumour (earlier) this year that Pixar was making a film of a similar name? --211.26.115.34 04:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been rampant rumors on various blogs over the last few months regarding W.A.L.-E or Wall-E being "Pixar's next film".  Previous incarnations of those WK pages have been pulled due to lack of factual information.  This one is no different.  SpikeJones 05:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We have yet to see *any* official announcement from Pixar regarding Wall-E.  The only item that the ComingSoon website (and everyone else who picked up the story from ComingSoon) talked about was that Disney (supposedly) announced release dates for their 200x films and that some film entitled "Wall-E" was on it.  Not one of the websites referring to this information contained any reliable reference or source for their reporting.  The term "blog" has many different meanings, and it covers many different types of websites -- even those that may be considered reliable sources of information under normal circumstances.  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball per WK:NOT, and until there is some official announcement from the Disney corporation or the Pixar folks on any facts surrounding Wall-E beyond a placeholder release date, Wall-E should not be included here. SpikeJones 00:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the fact that 27 June 2007 is a highly unlikely date considering that's two days before the release date of Ratatouille.  And a Wednesday.  Powers T 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WALL-E announcement? 

message: I own Monsters, Inc. on VHS, and it has the short film "Mike's New Car" on it.  I don't know about the other two films though.  Still, shouldn't the article somehow reflect this?  I'm not too sure how to word it so that it works, so any help or verification about the other films would be nice! Flowr6powr 04:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep in mind that this article is for Pixar corporate information.  Information specific to the Monsters DVD should go on the Monsters page itself.  Mike's New Car is already listed here because it is considered a Pixar short (alongside Knick-Knack, et al)SpikeJones 05:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, but what I'm saying is that this site specifically says that the shorts were only released on the DVD version when I own Monsters on VHS (not DVD) and have the short.  Each of the sites of the three movies states that the the respective short is on both VHS and DVD releases.  Therefore, I'm wondering if "DVD Exclusives" would be an appropriate header on this general Pixar site even though the shorts extended to VHS as well.  I realize that this particular article concerns itself with Pixar corporate information, but perhaps minimizing the extent of the distribution and availability of Pixar's awesomeness reflects poorly on Pixar itself. Flowr6powr 22:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The DVD title is misleading, now that I understand your point.  It would better be listed as "Home Video Exclusives" instead of "DVD Exclusives".  Is that your suggestion to make the article better?  SpikeJones 02:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be great!!  Flowr6powr 20:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD specials 

message: where should we draw the line between mentioning every specific detail about the various Pixar films vs continuing information about Pixar corporate (or previous corporate, pre-Disney)?  For example, including information about the award-status of the various films is best served on those films' individual pages rather than on this corporate info page.  I've been moving other film-not-corporate info to those individual pages over the past few months; should we make it a fell swoop and do it all at once?  Perhaps a standard Pixar-film template would include those items on the "pixar traditions" section on each film's page, with just a brief mention of those traditions here for continuity?  Other thoughts?  SpikeJones 19:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  corporate vs film production info 

message: Just giving everyone a heads-up, that Wall-E's IMDb page is up and running, with a release in 2009. I am still in agreement that no Wall-E page should be made until Pixar's official announcement is made, so we can reference it, though.
But be prepared just in case the Wall-E page pops up again.
--211.26.115.43 04:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall-E 

message: Has Pixar made any films/animated films which were not in partnership with Disney, and was not released by Disney? I've always thought that Pixar broke away from Disney and started working on their own films -- there was no longer a partnership. I know that Disney has since bought Pixar, but I've always thought that there was a period in time when there was no partnership, and that films were released in this period -- however, The Invincibles, Cars, etc.; they're all released by Disney. Does anyone know of any? 24.23.51.27 20:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This Pixar corporate page does list all films (long and short form) that were created by Pixar.  You may be only familiar with Pixar's theatrical releases that have all been distributed by Disney, but rest assured that Pixar has produced many other pieces as well, as indicated in the article.  Each individual film's linked page should contain the information you're looking for.SpikeJones 02:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pixar-only films? 

message: I need some help with figuring out which characters are more or mosrt or least likeable when it comes to Pixar films, long and short. Please see my survey at User:ANNAfoxlover/Pixar. Thank you. ANNAfoxlover 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please see my Pixar survey

message: should we put cars' two oscar nominations up now? or wait to see if it wins any. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.206.193 (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oscar noms

message: I think that the feature films section is quite short compared to the short films section. I think each movie should have a brief plot description and/or a picture and that the short films' section be cut off a bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr10o3 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think there's already too much information posted about the content of each film on this page, a page that is supposed to be for Pixar corporate information.  People who want info on a specific film should find that info (and picture, etc) on each film's individual page.SpikeJones 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movies VS. Short Films 

message: In every Pixar movies credits I've seen a section called Production Babies, can someone clarify what this is. Babies born during production, programs made in production etc.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr10o3 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's babies born during the production of the film born to Pixar employees. Since a movie can take 5-6 years from conception to final product, some of those "babies" could be 4-5 years old when the film comes out. As far as I know, Pixar was the first to do this, but I've seen it on other films like Robots. RMS Oceanic 09:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production Babies 

message: someone made a change in the movie list and added the movie dinosaur. it said it was rumored so i dont think they were reffering to "Dinosaur" (2000). can someone confirm this rumor with a site or is this just vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.225.207.225 (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinosaur? Rumored?