Toy Story 4

[Spider-ManHero12]

According to Tom Hanks it is.

Last fall, producer Darla K. Anderson stated that (at the time) Pixar had no plan for Toy Story 4. However, in a recently-aired interview with BBC’s Breakfast News, Hanks indicated that has changed – and that the beloved computer-animation studio is indeed “working on ['Toy Story 4'] right now.”

Plans to release several shorts featuring Woody (Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), and the rest of the Toy Story gang have been on the docket for a while now; the first of them, “Toy Story: Hawaiian Vacation” is currently being shown in front of the Cars sequel in theaters. Nonetheless, there’s been no actual confirmation or serious talk from either studio heads or the Toy Story voice actor cast about another full-length movie – until now.

http://screenrant.com/tom-hanks-toy-story-4-sandy-121180/

 

[MadVillainy]

I hope not. 3 had the perfect ending

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

3 was incredible, and while I think it should be over at 3, I would go see a 4th.

 

[Electrix]

When did Pixar suddenly become money hungry? First they made Cars 2 for the merchandise, and now they're planning Toy Story 4 for the $$$ despite Toy Story 3 being a perfect ending for the franchise.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Yeah. I think Toy Story 4 is unnecessary.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

This may not happen. Maybe Tom was misinformed?

 

[Spider-Who?]

sighhh. TS3 was perfect. No need to go any further. Though I do like the idea of the characters being kept alive through shorts like the one in Cars 2.

 

[chaseter]

I think Cars 2 showed that things at Pixar are changing.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I honestly don't think Pixar is doing Toy Story 4 jsut for $$$. It's their most popular series, so would they really want to milk it? TS4 must be for a good reason considering how amazing TS3 was.

 

[chaseter]

I don't think they expected Toy Story 3 to make a billion bucks at the box office. Along with merchandising, Pixar made a ton of money off that movie. So...it doesn't shock me that they will try a Toy Story 4. Again, it looks as if things at Pixar are changing. Don't be shocked if we see Cars 3, Toy Story 4, Finding Nemo 2, or and say it with me Ratat2ouille.

 

[Laderlappen]

Every movie they make makes a s load of money so I doubt they would make it just for the money. 3 movies is fine and the third had a great ending. Leave it alone please.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I trust in pixar. I just hope they don't become money hungry.

 

[Sgt.Pepper]

Three movies is enough and making another movie feels unnecessary , so I really hope they're not going to make a fourth movie.

 

[PWN3R]

So how do they justify this? I don't want another Toy Story. It's always been about Andy as much as the other toys. Andy grew up. The story is done.

 

[chaseter]

So how do they justify this? I don't want another Toy Story. It's always been about Andy as much as the other toys. Andy grew up. The story is done.

The story is done but the fun has just begun!
TOY STORY 4​

If this is true then I think it's pretty obvious why they are doing it...moolah

 

[PWN3R]

I think Tom Hanks is just assuming at this point.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ I'm thinking that as well.

 

[Jick]

Most seem to agree that the third wrapped it all up perfectly and a fourth is unecessary.
''Nooooooooo'' is the first thing that came to mind when I saw that number 4 after the title, so I immensely agree.

And of course it would be for the money.

 

[Marvin]

and with that Pixar has entered the dreamworks realm of cash driven creativity.
look out for cars 3 in a few years.

 

[John Locke]

I'm thinking he mistaken and its just a few Toy Story shorts that will be released on a separate DVD.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Agreed. If Toy Story 4 is being made, I have faith that it's for good reason, but I just don't see their being a 4th film.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Toy Story 3 was the perfect end for the series. Please don't do this

 

[bullets]

They've covered all the paradigms of a toy's life. There doesn't seem to be anywhere to go without giving a mediocre installment to a superb group of films. I like the idea of shorts however.

 

[Dugath]

This is funny in a way, people saying Pixar only did Cars 2 for the money.. Of course they did, in fact, every movie they do is JUST for the money. They are not going to make movies just for the sake of making them, its a business.

If they think it will make money they will do it.

 

[bullets]

With 'Cars 2,' has Pixar become like everyone else (and is that a bad thing)?

June 27, 2011 | 9:30 am

For the last decade, Pixar has pulled off one of the great runs in movie history. Until this weekend, it had released eight films, and every single one of them became a runaway blockbuster (at least $200 million in domestic box office) and a critical darling (not a single one got below 70% on the Rotten Tomatoes website).
It was a run, like Joe DiMaggio in the batter's box or Roger Federer at a Grand Slam semifinal, that seemed impossible for the company to keep replicating, and seemed even less likely to ever be broken by anyone else. (It lasts even longer if you throw in the company's trio of 1990s movies, which didn't all hit $200 million but were financial successes just the same.)

But all hot spells must come to an end, and indeed, one of Pixar's two streaks ended this weekend. "Cars 2" did open to $68 million, putting it on pace for another $200-million gross. The movie, however, left critics cold, garnering only a 34% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, as my colleagues Patrick Day and Rebecca Keegan note in an article in Monday's Los Angeles Times.
Audiences came out, but they came out to a movie that, at least by one measure of quality, was muddling around down there with the rest of summer's moneymaking mediocrities. "Cars 2's" Rotten Tomatoes score was just half of its two-digit box-office total, a disparity that puts it in the same camp as "Green Lantern" (Rotten Tomatoes score: 26%. Opening-weekend: $53 million.)

In a way, the fact that "Cars 2" attracted audiences despite the weak reviews could feel more unsettling than if it had performed poorly at the box office. The lesson of Pixar's long run has not only been that a massively sized, big-budget Hollywood operation can consistently create films of quality, but that this quality was integral to its success. Other studios often churn out indistinguishable, derivative entertainment that makes gobs of money. But at John Lasseter's Pixar, impeccable storytelling and huge popularity move in perfect alignment. The company puts out high-end films, and we come out because of that.

After this weekend, It turns out that not only can Pixar create something middling, but we'll come out to see it anyway, if not for ourselves then for our children. Which kind of throws into question, at least in more cynical moments, whether the quality was as much of a reason for the earlier films' popularity as we previously thought. Would "Ratatouille" or "Wall-E" have been pretty much as successful even if they didn't have the subtle touches and indelible characters? It's a little harder to offer a definitive "no" after this weekend. For hard-core animation enthusiasts, it's a deflated feeling, like learning the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, in the words of one disconsolate (and perhaps slightly melodramatic) friend.

In noting what they didn't like about "Cars 2" (in many instances, the noise and the focus on the broad character of Mater), critics didn't just evaluate the film but judged it in the larger world of its studio. "It actually hurts to knock one of [Pixar's] movies," wrote Indiewire critic Leonard Maltin. (Whether critics were harder on the movie in the first place because Pixar is held to a higher standard is an interesting question, though the subject of a different post.)

There are those who will say that in making the "Cars" sequel in the first place, Pixar put the licensing cart first (the first had taken in an estimated $10 billion in global merchandising). And for those who think sequelization is an inherent problem, there are reasons for concern about the studio. Pixar will soon bring out a "Monsters, Inc." sequel, and there are already rumblings that the company is quietly developing a third "Cars" film. But it's of course still way too early to worry about Pixar; there's far too much of a track record, not to mention a record of steady stewardship, for that.

Even more interesting as this debate unfolds is the question of a Pixar effect -- that is, a level of quality that has lifted all animation boats. Pixar may have slipped, but only after prompting other studios to raise their game. Many attribute Paramount's taking a chance on Gore Verbinski's "Rango" to the success of sophisticated animated movies at Pixar, for example. And "Rio," Fox's spring hit and critical darling, was so close to Pixar's values that it actually caused the Lasseter-run company to shelve one of its own projects (an exotic-animal movie titled "Newt"). That may be of small comfort for those accustomed to a Pixar gem every summer, but it does makes it a little easier to wake up and look under the pillow.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mov...ning-mcqueen-lasseter-reviews-box-office.html