Okay, Carl? I've held back to be polite. Seriously.
I know you're giggling with naughty abandon at Saying Mean Things About Pixar because of some personal issues, but that's not why it's getting old--
It's getting old because you're making what is currently
THE OLDEST THREAD ON THE INTERNET every single, solitary, blue-eyed time the P-word is mentioned, patting yourself on the back for believing you're the first person on Planet Earth to say it, and those of us with some actual modicum of Disney knowledge groan each and every single darn time a newbie believes himself to be discovering the square wheel.
I know I keep saying "Okay, here's the explanation
one last time", and that's because I always believe it IS the last time I have to explain this...How silly of me. It's like sweeping the Sahara with a whisk broom.
But let's see if it penetrates this time--(Yes, Ben, excuse me while I cut loose, but in the long run, I think you'll thank me for it):
2005: Disney CEO Michael Eisner is having trouble keeping Pixar under house rule, as their contract with the studio nears expiration. Pixar threatens to quit and go independent if Finding Nemo is a hit, and despite Eisner's best attempts at sabotaging the marketing of the movie, Pixar seems to have won their case.
As a bit of counter-leverage, Eisner claims that Disney owns all marketing rights to Pixar characters, and since video sequels creatively come under the heading of "marketing", Disney could legally make their own sequels to existing Disney-released Pixar titles. "You're bluffing!" Pixar responds--Eisner quickly forms Circle 7 Studio, a CGI house specifically made to produce direct-video Pixar sequels, the first two announced titles of which are...sound familiar?...Toy Story 3, and Monsters Inc. 2.
(Don't believe it? Here's what Eisner thought would be Toy Story 3:
http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief ... o-see.aspx
...Not pretty, is it?)
After Eisner is kicked out on his rear (and C7 being cited as one reason why), Disney and Pixar properties become common Disney property, and the "fake" sequels reverted to Pixar's ownership. And what is the best way to assert legal copyright ownership and prevent someone ELSE from making an evil wretched imitation of something you own?....Figure it out, you're smart.
As for Cars 2, have you ever heard Bob Iger talk about anything else? Well, have you?
That's Iger, btw, not Lasseter.
Well: Hope that settled in--
Still--Let's make sure...Here's a pop quiz:
1) What was the name of the CGI studio Eisner formed to combat Pixar?
a) Circle 7
b) Mark VII
c) WDFA
2) Which one was NOT one of the fake sequels Eisner threatened to make?
a) Monsters Inc. 2
b) Toy Story 3
c) Wall-E Goes Hawaiian
3) Which of the following is NOT true about Bob Iger's overreaction to unfairly received Disney films?
a) Built an entire Cars area into Disney California Adventure
b) Declared that Tiana would be permanently featured in Disney Princess marketing
c) Has Chicken Little tattooed on his left rear.
Yes, we know--"Eww, Pixar's making sequels!" Gosh, that's original.
And if it isn't...you've just been accused of having the same idea as about two thousand other newbies on the net. Which, right now, is how we see you, until you come up with a new act.
Harsh? Oh, a tad.
Btw, do you wanna see what Bolt would've looked like without Lasseter, too?