Disney's Planes

[Brian in Mesa]

Disney's Planes

Release Date: August 9, 2013 (3D/2D theaters)
Studio: Walt Disney Pictures
Director: Klay Hall
Screenwriter: Jeffrey M. Howard
Genre: Animation, Adventure, Family
MPAA Rating: PG (for some mild action and rude humor)
Website: Disney.com/Planes | Facebook

Starring: Dane Cook, Stacy Keach, Brad Garrett, Teri Hatcher, Cedric the Entertainer, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, John Cleese, Carlos Alazraqui, Priyanka Chopra, Gabriel Iglesias, Roger Craig Smith, Colin Cowherd, Sinbad, Oliver Kalkofe, Brent Musburger

Plot Summary: From above the world of “Cars” comes “Disney’s Planes,” an action-packed 3D animated comedy adventure featuring Dusty (voice of Dane Cook), a plane with dreams of competing as a high-flying air racer. But Dusty’s not exactly built for racing—and he happens to be afraid of heights. So he turns to a seasoned naval aviator who helps Dusty qualify to take on the defending champ of the race circuit. Dusty's courage is put to the ultimate test as he aims to reach heights he never dreamed possible, giving a spellbound world the inspiration to soar.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[DemsMyBoys]

Looking forward to this one.

I like planes. I like animation. I like Disney. And I like rude humor aimed at 8-year old's.

 

[Gaddabout]

Disney and Stephen King. Before they are done, they will have animated every inanimate thing ever.

Coming in 2016: Disney's Office Space ... the Red Stapler in a coming of age story, as he battles the Evil Printer and the Monday Virus.

 

[Covert Rain]

Very curious this is Pixar characters being used outside of the Pixar studios. This is either one of those situations where Pixar simply said we are not interested but knock yourself out or something else. That something else could be that this is the first salvo of many to come with Disney slowing retiring the PIXAR name and making everything DISNEY.

 

[Chaplin]

Very curious this is Pixar characters being used outside of the Pixar studios. This is either one of those situations where Pixar simply said we are not interested but knock yourself out or something else. That something else could be that this is the first salvo of many to come with Disney slowing retiring the PIXAR name and making everything DISNEY.

No, it's simply licensing. The original deal was for this movie to be straight-to-DVD, and Pixar isn't in that business. Lasseter probably just decided to make it theatrical, but since Disney held the rights because of the straight-to-DVD deal, they are releasing it through Disney. Since Disney and Pixar are essentially the same entity, they probably thought that there was no point to attaching the Pixar name to it. Especially with Monsters University already being released a few weeks earlier. The money's going to the same place anyway.

 

[jf-08]

How is this different from Cars?

 

[Chaplin]

How is this different from Cars?

Well, it IS called "Planes"...

There's not a lot of difference, it's another film from the same universe.

 

[Covert Rain]

No, it's simply licensing. The original deal was for this movie to be straight-to-DVD, and Pixar isn't in that business. Lasseter probably just decided to make it theatrical, but since Disney held the rights because of the straight-to-DVD deal, they are releasing it through Disney. Since Disney and Pixar are essentially the same entity, they probably thought that there was no point to attaching the Pixar name to it. Especially with Monsters University already being released a few weeks earlier. The money's going to the same place anyway.

I am not buying that part. I would argue when it comes to this universe, PIXAR has more clout versus Disney. In fact, it was the seemingly continuing Disney free fall that prompted Disney to buy PIXAR in the first place.

 

[Finito]

Let me guess the green plane with the wide nostrils is being voiced by a black guy?

 

[Gaddabout]

I am not buying that part. I would argue when it comes to this universe, PIXAR has more clout versus Disney. In fact, it was the seemingly continuing Disney free fall that prompted Disney to buy PIXAR in the first place.

More likely, Disney is smart enough to not attach Pixar's name to it so as not to devalue the high esteem the company's name brings. Disney has be unashamed pushing crap for three decades. They can take it. They don't need Pixar to sell the movie, because it will make a lot of money without it.

Disney is Chevy to Pixar's Cadillac.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Let me guess the green plane with the wide nostrils is being voiced by a black guy?

Nope ...

You must be registered for see images

 

[Chaplin]

More likely, Disney is smart enough to not attach Pixar's name to it so as not to devalue the high esteem the company's name brings. Disney has be unashamed pushing crap for three decades. They can take it. They don't need Pixar to sell the movie, because it will make a lot of money without it.

Disney is Chevy to Pixar's Cadillac.

Yep, like I said, no point. The budget is probably pretty small, seeing as it was originally straight-to-DVD, so the millions it makes in theaters is going to be a huge boon for Disney the company, and it's going to happen regardless what name is on it. Would any of you see it if the Pixar name was on it and not see it since Disney's name is on it? It is a Cars spin-off after all. I'm wondering where Disney became such a horrible company that can't draw audiences...

 

[Covert Rain]

Yep, like I said, no point. The budget is probably pretty small, seeing as it was originally straight-to-DVD, so the millions it makes in theaters is going to be a huge boon for Disney the company, and it's going to happen regardless what name is on it. Would any of you see it if the Pixar name was on it and not see it since Disney's name is on it? It is a Cars spin-off after all. I'm wondering where Disney became such a horrible company that can't draw audiences...

Well...I have been on other forums and many people are pointing out the same exact thing. However, I think Disney had a terrible run and I remember reading an article talking about how Disney had let the times pass them by.

PIXAR on the other hand was producing hit after hit and their method for creating films was something Disney coveted. So, I think it's going too far to say Disney animation would have failed eventually without PIXAR and Lassiter. However, giving him the reigns and becoming Chief Creative Officer of Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios might just have saved that division from years and years diminishing part of Disney.

Also, I think slapping the name PIXAR on a movie does carry clout with movie goers.

More likely, Disney is smart enough to not attach Pixar's name to it so as not to devalue the high esteem the company's name brings. Disney has be unashamed pushing crap for three decades. They can take it. They don't need Pixar to sell the movie, because it will make a lot of money without it.

Disney is Chevy to Pixar's Cadillac.

That I can buy more than anything.

 

[D-Dogg]

Doesn't look very good.

 

[BigRedRage]

weak.

 

[Chaplin]

Well...I have been on other forums and many people are pointing out the same exact thing. However, I think Disney had a terrible run and I remember reading an article talking about how Disney had let the times pass them by.

PIXAR on the other hand was producing hit after hit and their method for creating films was something Disney coveted. So, I think it's going too far to say Disney animation would have failed eventually without PIXAR and Lassiter. However, giving him the reigns and becoming Chief Creative Officer of Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios might just have saved that division from years and years diminishing part of Disney.

Also, I think slapping the name PIXAR on a movie does carry clout with movie goers.

Sorry, but I think most filmgoers will disagree that Wreck-It Ralph was below Pixar-quality.

Disney's "bad run" was punctuated by their on-again, off-again policy of abandoning 2d animation. And they admittedly had an average 6 or 7 year run from 2002 to 2008, but then they came out with Princess and the Frog and Tangled, then of course Wreck-It Ralph last year and Frozen this year, and they are definitely moving up.

The issue here IMO all boils down to the fact that Planes was originally a straight-to-DVD movie. Has nothing to do with Disney crap vs. Pixar gold.

 

[Gaddabout]

The issue here IMO all boils down to the fact that Planes was originally a straight-to-DVD movie. Has nothing to do with Disney crap vs. Pixar gold.

That's what I know of Disney the past 25 years or so. They take a legacy franchise, make a woeful-but-super-cheap sequel, and go straight to home distribution. Soccer moms can't get enough of this stuff and Disney doesn't have to spend any money on marketing. Just put it on a shelf in Walmart and it disappears in a rush. There's no brand degradation because there's no opening nights, no movie reviews, and no theater-run hype. It's like printing money.

That's what this is, but it got of its leash somehow and is headed to a theater near you. Someone at Disney must've felt the public wouldn't make the connection with Cars, that it could stand alone, but it's so obvious that I don't know how you don't. I was very upset when I saw this trailer in the theater because it signaled to me the end of Pixar as I knew it.

 

[Chaplin]

That's what I know of Disney the past 25 years or so. They take a legacy franchise, make a woeful-but-super-cheap sequel, and go straight to home distribution. Soccer moms can't get enough of this stuff and Disney doesn't have to spend any money on marketing. Just put it on a shelf in Walmart and it disappears in a rush. There's no brand degradation because there's no opening nights, no movie reviews, and no theater-run hype. It's like printing money.

True, but what's wrong with that? If you were running a business and you had something you knew would make money but didn't need to put in the work to market it, wouldn't you do it? It's not like those titles will be in the Vault along with Pinocchio and Snow White.

That's what this is, but it got of its leash somehow and is headed to a theater near you. Someone at Disney must've felt the public wouldn't make the connection with Cars, that it could stand alone, but it's so obvious that I don't know how you don't. I was very upset when I saw this trailer in the theater because it signaled to me the end of Pixar as I knew it.

Huh? There is only one motivating factor here: MONEY. Period. Has nothing to do with Pixar or Disney. Their direct-to-DVD sequels sell because kids watch these movies and their parents buy them. That's it. Disney hasn't proclaimed that this is another great Pixar legacy title. It's saying it's from the people who brought you Cars, which is true, and they are releasing it to theaters because they think that it will make money. And that's true too.

It's connection to Cars is precisely why they are releasing it in theaters. How is it the end of Pixar? That doesn't make any sense. If anything, you can say that Pixar decided they've milked the Cars franchise enough with that horrible sequel and told Disney that they have no problem releasing more spin-offs. Why would they? If Disney can make more money, Pixar will get more money to make more movies.

 

[Gaddabout]

True, but what's wrong with that? If you were running a business and you had something you knew would make money but didn't need to put in the work to market it, wouldn't you do it? It's not like those titles will be in the Vault along with Pinocchio and Snow White.

Huh? There is only one motivating factor here: MONEY. Period. Has nothing to do with Pixar or Disney. Their direct-to-DVD sequels sell because kids watch these movies and their parents buy them. That's it. Disney hasn't proclaimed that this is another great Pixar legacy title. It's saying it's from the people who brought you Cars, which is true, and they are releasing it to theaters because they think that it will make money. And that's true too.

It's connection to Cars is precisely why they are releasing it in theaters. How is it the end of Pixar? That doesn't make any sense. If anything, you can say that Pixar decided they've milked the Cars franchise enough with that horrible sequel and told Disney that they have no problem releasing more spin-offs. Why would they? If Disney can make more money, Pixar will get more money to make more movies.

It's a business, yadda yadda yadda, I always understood that, Chap. But Pixar is who they are because they strived be different, better, and this is a big blow to the esteem I had for them.

I could care less whether they make money or not. I have no stake in their bottom line. That's no my job as a customer. It only matters to me whether I admire their product or not.

 

[Covert Rain]

Sorry, but I think most filmgoers will disagree that Wreck-It Ralph was below Pixar-quality.

Disney's "bad run" was punctuated by their on-again, off-again policy of abandoning 2d animation. And they admittedly had an average 6 or 7 year run from 2002 to 2008, but then they came out with Princess and the Frog and Tangled, then of course Wreck-It Ralph last year and Frozen this year, and they are definitely moving up.

The issue here IMO all boils down to the fact that Planes was originally a straight-to-DVD movie. Has nothing to do with Disney crap vs. Pixar gold.

You lost me. Wreck-it Ralph and Tangled came POST JL getting control and implementing PIXAR practices. The bad run came before those films and was punctuated by poor performance at the box office by 2D animation and lackluster story telling of their 3D.

Home on the Range, Chicken Little, Hercules, Brother Bear, Treasure Planet, Dinosaur, Atlantis the Lost Empire.

Those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head. It had everything to do with Disney crap. They were losing their mojo and PIXAR was establishing itself as the premier studio for kids movies.

My brother in law toured the PIXAR studios pre-Disney acquisition. He spent the day with several of the animators and they all talked about how they were going to be the next Disney. They were surpassing Disney at their own bread and butter and the reason why Disney relentlessly pursued them from a distribution perspective to attach their name to the PIXAR brand.