Talk:Pixar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pixar has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject American Animation, which aims to cover topics on Wikipedia related to animation in the United States. If you would like to join, you can edit the article attached to this talk page, visit our project page, or leave feedback.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Graphic 2 Ray Gunn 3 Pixar - Dreamworks connection 4 What gives? 5 Cars 6 Breakup 7 Traditions 8 John Ratzenberger 9 Revenue and Employees 10 Logic 11 Reuters: "Disney in talks to acquire Pixar" 12 Merge Suggestion 13 No employment contracts? 14 Toy Story 3 update? 15 Pixar future films 16 POV 17 Wallace Shawn 18 Duplicate Information 19 WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?! 20 Pixar Criticisms 21 Work on Ghibli production for American release? 22 WALL-E announcement? 23 DVD specials 24 corporate vs film production info

[edit] Graphic

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)

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)

[edit] Ray Gunn

As far as I know, Ray Gunn has only been rumored, nothing has been confirmed. --TheAL 22:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) What I've heard is, since Mr. Bird is developing Ray Gunn when he was still at WB, the rights is owned by WB

[edit] Pixar - Dreamworks connection

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)

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)

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

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)

• • In my opinion, DreamWorks has tried to ruin it for Disney and Pixar. They tried to rip them off with Antz, but that result proved futile. They made Shrek, which won against Monsters, Inc. at the Academy Awards. They made Shrek 2 just to outgross Finding Nemo and rub it in their face with Shark Tale. They made Madagascar to rip-off Disney and CORE's, The Wild, which made The Wild a lower success than this film. DreamWorks, in my opinion, takes Bonnie Arnold away from Pixar to do Over the Hedge and Rex Grignon to do Madagascar. They are going waaayyyyy too far with Shrek 3, 4, and Puss in Boots, are they trying to really push Disney and Pixar to anger?- KJO May 3, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.60.206.106 (talk • contribs) .

• By the way, see also: List of films with similar plots. Peter S. 08:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What gives?

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:

1. Toy Story
2. Bug's Life
3. Monsters Inc.
4. Finding Nemo
5. 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)

[edit] Cars

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) .

[edit] Breakup

How is Disney going to make a computer-animated film without Pixar? Not only are they going to lose the company handling the production, they're going to lose John Ratzenberger! Don't they realize what they're doing? Scorpionman 01:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Disney has made a computer-animated/live-action hybrid film of its own before: Dinosaur. They're wrapping up production on their first computer-animated film, Chicken Little, which is to be released in November 2005. Pixar does more than just handle the production (i.e. "create what Disney tells them to"); Pixar writes, develops, and produces their own films without creative assistance from Disney. All Disney does is distribute the films. Without Disney, Pixar will simply find another distributor; and without Pixar, Disney will simply make its own computer-animated films. Neither necessarily needs the other to survive. --b. Touch 04:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but the animation for Dinosaurs sucked like a chimp. No, two chimps. Three. It sucked like infadent chimps. Oh, and you forgot to mention Valient, coming out soon. Those have really good animation. I hope Disney's CGI movies aren't only gunna be about birds. --Wack'd About Wiki

For the two Toy Story movies, Disney did all of the voice recording, not Pixar, so I don't know why you say they'll lose the use of Ratzenberger. Is he a shareholder of Pixar or something?

Disney just formed a development studio which is just for making Pixar sequels. As noted in the article, now they're working on Toy Story 3 and will start sequels to Bug's Life, Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo soon. In their deal, they got the use of all of the properties Pixar created, so they're legally entitled to do with them what they want. I think they'll suck without Pixar's involvement (since most of Disney's own productions lately have been really poor), but we'll have to wait and see.

This whole thing is a big mess, really. In a nutshell, during Pixar and Dinsey's 5-movie deal, Eisner testified before Congress and said that Apple was encouraging Internet music piracy (one of their commercials said, "Rip, Mix, Burn." about MP3's). Steve Jobs is not only chairman of Pixar, but also of Apple. Being accused of encouraging theft by a partner, he was (understandably) livid. He called some Disney execs, but Eisner denied making any such statement. No good: Jobs had the hearing transcript right in front of him and read it back to him over the phone.

In a few days, Jobs made that now infamous offer to Disney, which he knew Disney would refuse. Afterwards, Jobs called Roy Disney, with whom I guess he has a good friendship. Roy said, "Don't worry, when the wicked witch is gone, we'll all be one happy family again."

Many were thinking that after Eisner left (scheduled for this September) that Pixar would jump right back in bed with Disney. Notice how they haven't yet signed a deal with any other distributor. But now that Eisner has named Robert Iger as the next CEO, things may be back in the can again. Roy Disney hates Iger and since he's friends with Jobs, things may stay sour and Pixar may abandon their partnership with Disney forever. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:10, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

No, John Ratzenberger doesn't have a bond with Pixar that I know of, I just read on the Internet Movie Database that Disney would lose him if they decided to break up with Pixar. Scorpionman 04:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

John said if Pixar wasn't doing it, he wouldnt do the voice.

[edit] Traditions

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)

It's on the freeway during the trailer chase scene. IRT.BMT.IND 22:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Are we able to get a pic of this? I haven't seen it.

I agree, I can't find it, but maybe that's just because it's going so fast and there's so much to look through. If someone was able to say exactly where it was, exactly how far through the movie or exactly right after or before which quote or cue, maybe that would help. -- QQQ (6-11-05)

I'll have to look for it, but even if it doesn't appear in The Incredibles, shouldn't this still be listed as a tradition? It was in every other Pixar movie. Lord Bodak 22:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting an answer about where the Pizza Planet truck is in The Incredibles. Someone knows where it is. Someone please put the DVD into your player, find the Pizza Planet truck, pause it, look at the hour, minute, and second on the time display, and tell us. A pic would also help. Also, it's possible it's only found on widescreen (off the screen in fullscreen). If this is the case, tell us that too. --QQQ (1-7-06)

...And I'm still awaiting an exact answer. I just watched The Incredibles the other day, and I took some time to carefully watch the trailer-freeway scene toward the end, as well as the police-chase scene at the beginning, both in their entirety, on widescreen DVD, at 1/16th the speed, looking for the Pizza Planet truck. I DIDN'T SEE IT. I still might have missed it, but if no one can give me an exact answer in the next few days, then I'll be forced to delete The Incredibles portion from the Pizza Planet truck appearances list, and change the words "The Pizza Planet Truck which featured prominently in Toy Story appears in each of the Pixar films" to "The Pizza Planet Truck which featured prominently in Toy Story appears in almost each of the Pixar films." I watched Cars yesterday too, and I didn't see the Pizza Planet truck in there either, but I wasn't looking for it as carefully. --QQQ (6-10-06)

I am afraid to announce that the Pizza Planet truck does not appear in every Pixar movie. After waiting for months for an answer about where exactly the Pizza Planet truck is and not receiving one, I am forced to delete The Incredibles from the list of movies that Pizza Planet truck appears in. The only reason why people say that it's in the freeway scene, or that they heard it's in the freeway scene is because that's almost the only place in the movie where there are any cars. But I could still be wrong. If the Pizza Planet truck does appear in the movie, you can still correct it. And don't correct it unless you explain exactly where it appears, exactly when in the movie, before or after which quote or cue. But until that happens, I sadly believe it's not in the movie at all. --QQQ (6-20-06)

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)

I must thank whoever it is that said that the Pizza Planet truck appears in The Incredibles on the upper-left part of the screen when Bob says "I take Seventh, don't I?" That screen, for everyone's information, appears at 1:35:19 through the movie. Because whoever-it-was said where it was, I believe that the Pizza Planet truck is there. Is that it, the yellow car, next to the blue car, going the opposite direction as the hero family? If it is, and there's no more appearance of it in the movie, then I must have a bit of a grudge on the makers of the movie for not making it very clear. How many people saw it when it was shown in the theaters? I don't see how anyone could have. Were the makers of The Incredibles trying to avoid an anachronism, because the Truck is a 1980s-style Gyoza and the movie takes place in the 50s or something? --QQQ (9-1-06)

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)

[edit] John Ratzenberger

If John's not going to do the voice of Hamm, then why make Toy Story 3? Scorpionman 02:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well,

1. The movie isn't scheduled for release until 2007, so it's hard to tell who will definately be in it and who won't.
2. Pixar isn't interested in doing another Toy Story sequel—they want to go onto new stuff.
3. By 2007, Pixar may be back in bed with Disney, and that may be good enough for Ratzenberger. Have you noticed that Pixar hasn't signed up with any other distributor yet? By most accounts, Jobs is waiting for Eisner to leave before he tries to rekindle their relationship.
4. Hamm wasn't one of the major characters in either film. Yes, he was prominent and funny, but he wasn't Buzz or Woody.
5. They could easily hire an impersenator to do the voice of Hamm, though I'm sure they'd prefer Ratzenberger himself if they can get him.

HTH. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's unclear in the Wiki entry if it is John Ratzenberger or Wallace Shawn who plays on the Pixar softball team. Please clarify. (I assume Ratzenberger, but am not the author.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.64.147.48 (talk • contribs) .

---

Can we remove the bulk of the John Ratzenberger entry and/or move it to the official John Ratzenberger page? I can understand mentioning that he has appeared in multiple Pixar films and plays on the Pixar softball team, but the rest of the section is extremely movie and/or John specific and should appear on those pages instead of here. Thoughts?SpikeJones 11:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revenue and Employees

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

This statement sounds odd:

Pixar's first five feature films have collectively grossed more than $2.5 billion, equivalent to the highest per-film average gross in the industry.

"Equivalent?" As if there is another studio that has averaged $500 million per film? Also, since Incredibles has been out for a while now, this statistic could be updated for the total gross for their first 6 movies now. --Texas ed 03:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logic

Explain the logic in hand some of USA's most-loved films to the Bad Sequel King.

[edit] Reuters: "Disney in talks to acquire Pixar"

"Walt Disney is in serious talks about an acquisition of Pixar Animation Studios [..] The deal would be a stock transaction and make Pixar Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs the biggest individual shareholder in Disney." [1]

Maybe interesting to use in the article. ~ Thijs, 21:46 (CET), 19 jan 2006

[edit] Merge Suggestion

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)

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)

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)

Jan 24 2006 is the deal announcement date, not the actual merger of the companies.

According to the Disney official press release, the acquisition is expected to be completed by summer 2006. Bwithh 22:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Pixar and Disney should be kept seperate, and a new article should be created that will (in the future) credit the history of the intertwinment. This is where Pixar's history ends, and the life of Disney-Pixar begins. If Ratatouille will be made under D-P, then it should be removed from this list and added to the D-P list. --Wack'd About Wiki 00:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

I have removed the merge tags. There is currently a merge-triangle between three articles (Pixar, Disney-Pixar Studios and Walt Disney Feature Animation) all wanting to merge into each other. Not only does this not make sense (they can't all merge into each other unless all three become one article) but there does not seem to be any support for merging. It appears as if though this was added with malicious or vandalistic intent. If anyone still feels like the merge tags are warranted, please add merge tags at more specific locations (let us know which sections should be merged and to/from where). Zukeeper 09:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No employment contracts?

From the article:

"Pixar HR policies will remain intact, including the lack of employment contracts".

Can somebody tell more about this? Why do Pixar people have no contracts? Are they all temps? Is this a good thing in a certain way? Peter S. 15:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

From the NYTimes, Jan 29: Unlike a typical Oscar-winning director, however, Mr. Bird is not a free agent with his sights set on the next big-budget negotiation. He is an employee of the studio. Indeed, he is part of a group of directors and technical talents at Pixar — including Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich, the creators of "Finding Nemo," and Pete Doctor, the director of "Monsters, Inc." — who have staked their reputations on their work at Pixar. Again, in contrast to convention, these professionals have traded one-time contracts for long-term affiliation and contribute across the studio, rather than to just their pet projects. According to Randy S. Nelson, who joined the company in 1997 and is dean of Pixar University, a company-run education and training operation, this model reflects "Pixar's specific critique of the industry's standard practice." He explains it this way: "Contracts allow you to be irresponsible as a company. You don't need to worry about keeping people happy and fulfilled. What we have created here — an incredible workspace, opportunities to learn and grow, and, most of all, great co-workers — is better than any contract."

In other words, staff are free to come and go as they please, so as long as the staff is happy, they'll stick around. SpikeJones 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toy Story 3 update?

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)

• Who knows, I was thinking it would be about the original plot of Andy's mom dating a divorced man with a daughter with Barbies that the characters need to bond with. That was the working plot (circa 2004). It should be about Al from TS2 actually shipping Woody and the collectibles to the museum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.60.206.106 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Pixar future films

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)

[edit] POV

I removed the POV in this sentance: ...the group was purchased in 1986 by current Apple Computer, Inc. CEO Steve Jobs after he had been kicked out of the company he founded with Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne, and was looking for something to do with his money... JamesBenjamin

[edit] Wallace Shawn

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)

Joe Ranft didn't do any voices in Monsters Inc. or the Indcredibles.24.29.74.132 17:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] Duplicate Information

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)

[edit] WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!

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) .

{{sofixit}}. And please don't shout. Powers 03:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's been in perfect order for months. I've been seeing it only look better for weeks!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.220.224 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Pixar Criticisms

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)

Utter nonsense. Erased it, as it violates WP:OR and is clearly vandalism. Clearly some grungy kid obsessed with conspiracy theories. Wiki-newbie 19:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for doing that. I just didn't want to seem too revert-happy. RMS Oceanic 19:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

OK, at least it is encyclopedic and referenced, and doesn't look like the work of a vandal. Wiki-newbie 18:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Work on Ghibli production for American release?

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)

[edit] WALL-E announcement?

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)

Somebody please give an official source for this information! --211.26.122.82 09:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

SpikeJones, What do you classify as blog? Is BoxOfficeMojo a blog? Is ComingSoon a blog? The film news community on the internet seem to have come to a general consensus that Wall-E exists and that it is set for release on June 27, 2007. -- 210.49.97.67 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] DVD specials

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think that would be great!! Flowr6powr 20:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] corporate vs film production info

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)

Articles demain broad coverage. Pixar is well known to be "MGM as run by Willy Wonka" so I think we can focus on Pixar's history, because they are a company, before moving onto their creative products. Wiki-newbie 19:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)