Disney’s “Planes” …again

We don’t usually post trailers twice, but three months ago we posted the trailer for Disney’s “Cars-inspired” direct-to-DVD movie Planes – and after two days and 100 plus comments the studio pulled the video from the internet. They’ve just officially uploaded it to You Tube again today and we thought we’d let you have at it once more (embed below). Above, the first official image of lead character “Dusty” voiced by Jon Cryer. The movie goes on sale Spring 2013.


  • Mat H

    Looks like a lot fun! I would of enjoyed this as a young boy for sure.

  • The Gee

    The studio is taking that song from Top Gun a little too seriously ain’t it? I mean producing something like this is indeed riding into the danger zone. It is so risky. Certainly they realize we’re now in for over two years of people complaining about this movie. Why must every Pixar film be on the cutting edge?

    Yeah. I can see how kids will dig it like I dug Don Knotts in that Mr. Limpit movie. It was all in good fun…however…

    …to go from “Toy Story” to Toy Store movies…stop the innovating, folks! It is just too risky.

  • http://popyea.deviantart.com/ nick

    i think it looks cute, but i’m not sure i’m into Jon Cryer.
    He just so damn unlikable in two and a half men.

  • Rufus

    Put Charlie Sheen in as a drunken plane and i’m ONBOARD! PUN INTENDED!

  • Toonio

    Coming right up from Disney’s chief creative officer and an animation studio with overseas shops… CAR-PLANES!!!!

    uh? uh? uh?

    • James Ciambor

      Quite creative isn’t it. Like Bob Harper said, we should utilize all methods of transportation as animated concepts; we’ve never seen that before, like trains or naval vessels, that would be a great use of the medium! That will surely make you the next Walt Disney or Hayao Myiazaki. While your at it add some bland catch phrases and recycle animation from previous films to save budget, that will only enhance the films. Especially if their straight to DVD. These guys are artistic virtuosos!

      One wonder’s why there is a second dark ages coming in animation?

    • James Ciambor

      Though in all do seriousness, am I the only one that thinks that repetitiously doing this ad nauseum may bring on a second dark age? Pixar has discarded several interesting concepts in favor of sequels. Brave is really their only concept to look forward to, and you still wonder if they will stay true to Chapman’s vision. Disney isn’t really profitable on their own two feet anymore. To further this dilemma it seems that television animation is in the tubes as well.

      • snip2364

        As we said, we are already in a Dark Age. But let’s leave that discussion for the other blog post, shall we?

  • Rae

    But does the aircraft carrier talk…?
    That’s all I wanna know.

    • Bob Harper

      Didn’t you hear? The follow up to this is Boats!

  • http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/ Michael Sporn

    There was once hope in the work of Pixar. The eyelid/windshield thing was fine the first time around in Cars 1, but was tedious in Cars 2 and even worse in this ad (for an ad). Lasseter has become all commercial; gone the artiste.

    • Upstanding Citizen

      Can we prove he was ever the artiste? Maybe he just knew which artists to surround himself with…

      • ben plotnik

        He WAS an artist as a student at CALarts. then he became a director- a director’s job isn’t to specifically animate or design or anything else- their job is TO SURROUND themselves and organize the right artists. A director’s job is to have a vision and then call in people to help. Also, planes has nothing to do with pixar. its inspired by cars, but that doesn’t mean much. the magnificent 7 was based on the 7 samurai but that doesn’t mean akira kurosawa had anything to do with the magnificent 7. Now, john lasseter isn’t perfect, cars 2 was crap, but don’t go around blindly hating.

    • James

      Hey Michael, as far as I know this is purely Disney’s thing. The people at Pixar have no involvement at all.

  • http://www.frankpanucci.com Frank Panucci

    Is that “tewd” in the plane’s eyes?
    Does Dreamworks get paid a license fee for that?

  • http://markpudleiner.blogspot.com/ Pudleiner

    Shift over Tinkerbell, there’s room on the shelf for some Planes dvd’s. – Well done !

  • Ira

    I’m curious if these were done at Pixar Canada? As for your comment about the Tinkerbell direct to dvd’s…I have a four year old, I’ve seen all three of the movies and (here is goes) they’re actually pretty good. The stories are simple but well told and they look great, the animation isn’t AMAZING but the stories are solid. I’m just saying.

    • Bozo

      “They look great” ?!??

    • James

      No, it’s done somewhere else. Pixar has no involvement.

  • http://comicfury.com Kyo

    This is Disney, not Pixar.

    • http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog Michael Sporn

      Pixar is Pixar.

      • whippersnapper

        Well you can’t really say that. It’s their character universe but it’s called “Disney’s Planes” and was made by Disney. By your logic, Termite Terrace is responsible for Loonatics Unleashed.

  • Mac

    Yes this is Disney not Pixar, but since Pixar is owned by Disney, Lasseter is in charge of both Disney and Pixar animation and this project is set in the same world as Pixar’s Cars, the distinction is pretty blurred.

    Let’s be honest, it all looks the same now anyway.

  • http://zeteos.blogspot.com/ mick

    they should have employed this guy for the designs.

    http://jeanbarbaud.blogspot.com/

  • Caresse

    Um why the hell did White Zombie agree to this?

    • http://highlyrecommended.blogspot.com Satorical

      $

    • http://www.animationdungeon.com Shannon LeClerc

      Who seriously thought it was a good idea to USE Rob Zombie in a Disney feature?

      I like Rob Zombie’s music but it feels horribly wrong.

  • Bud

    What a mess this looks like. Whoever’s directing this must be Lasseter’s idea of the ultimate “yes” man. And it shows.

    How sad for Disney.

    I bet the accounteneers are happy, though.

  • Jessica Britton

    Haters gonna hate and all the hipper than thou fanboys are gonna find something to trash in pretty much anything. My question is…what are you doing that’s better? That will appeal to anyone other than yourself and a few like-minded wannabe critics? For that matter, what are you doing to further animation (in all it’s forms) at all? Films like this aren’t for everyone, and that’s ok. If it’s made for kids and they enjoy it, then Disney has done their job.

    • http://highlyrecommended.blogspot.com Satorical

      Kids deserve better than this.

      • Jessica Britton

        Kids deserve a lot better than what they get in many things. But I’m not going to base my opinion of this on a teaser. I’ve seen plenty of great teasers and trailers that turned out to be for very mediocre work.

  • http://www.spiteyourface.com Tony Mines

    Is that some ground that’s shaped like a plane!? Something seriously needs to be addressed here…

  • Was My Face Red

    Said it last time… gonna say it again… I think it’s heartbreaking that Disneypixarwhoever have decided to go down the militarism route with this. Will the heroes shoot down screaming bad planes? Blow up tanks with eyes? Drop loads of wise cracking cluster bombs on.. well, you get the idea. I’m not by any means a pacifist but please leave real war out of little kids entertainment.

    • Mike

      Yes, because we all know kids have zero interest in the military. No sir.

      • Was My Face Red

        They’ve got lots of fighty hitty shooty explosiony interests, but they’re nothing to do with real world militarism. We should leave making those kind of connections to childhood robbing nations like North Korea.

      • Mike

        So… I guess all those little green army men, G.I. Joes, Battleship boardgames, toy guns, Captain America and Sergeant Rock comics and toys sold over the decades have produced legions of gun-toting pyschopaths…? O…kay…

        But at the risk of being indoctrinated and having their innocence “robbed,” I think kids can handle seeing googly-eyed fighter jets zooming through candy-colored skies without turning into Kim Jong Il.

      • Was My Face Red

        It’s not Marvel or D.C. or the people who make Battleships Mike (though I doubt many kids connect that with the real world.) It’s Disney/Pixar. It’s the people who go on and on about childhood and magic suddenly working with real life warplanes instead. That feels like the crossing of a line to me. Call me a wuss if you like but I’d rather my kids were obsessed with Thomas The Tank Engine not Thomas The Tank.

      • Mike

        Are you forgetting the Sergeant (voiced by R. Lee Ermey) and other army men from the Toy Story movies? Not to mention the untimely [and explosive] death of Combat Carl…

        Anyway, I see no evidence of explosions and other forms of graphic violence in “Planes” so far. If it’s shown in the next trailer, then feel free to throw up your arms, emit a high-pitched scream, and shout: “Won’t someone PLEEEASE think of the children!!!”

      • Mike

        Oh, and by the way, Disney now owns Marvel—Captain America, Iron Man, and all that dreaded militarism that comes with them.

        Shield your eyes!

      • snip2364

        Sometimes I think the reason D23 Expo exists is because Disney keeps sucking as many companies as it can like a black hole, so they don’t have any competition! I hear a Street Fighter expy will appear in Wreck-It Ralph- I doubt they would’ve gotten away with that if Marvel didn’t have ties with Capcom!

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/Mesterius1 Mesterius|

    Looks horrible. Disney, get a life. And that goes for you too, Pixar.

  • Scarabim

    Disney’s next movie is about an underdog pair of crutches who are determined to prove themselves to those bad-boy wheelchairs and, against all odds, someday enter the Special Olympics.

    • Sardonic Tuba

      They could call it “Crutch Cargo”.

      • snip2364

        “The Special Crutches Olympics!”

        That’s the working title. The final title will be the incredibly long “GO!”

  • http://elblogderg.blogspot.com Roberto

    I’m pretty indifferent towards it. Does it look like they are trying to make more money out of the same ideas? Yes. Is the “Cars” universe so exciting to make a sequel and a spin-off out of it? No. But precisely for that very reason it is not such a sacrilege to make them. Is this or Tinkerbell another way of doing “direct to dvd” sequels, something Lasseter said he would stop? Kinda.

    But there’s a difference. The spin-off concept is sort of more tolerable than the sequel thing. Disney used The Seven Dwarves in World War Two shorts but he never made Snowhite 2. Jiminy Cricket appeared in Fun and Fancy Free but there never was a Pinnochio 2. Most of Disney classics don’t sit well with sequels cause they are based on traditional fairy tales that tell everything they need in the time of the movie. Their endings are perfect and don’t need further explanations. That applies for most of Pixar movies too, though maybe some of them have more room for sequels.

    On the other hand giving a direct to dvd feature to a secondary character from those movies (or in this one a character that didn’t actually appear in the original movie to begin with) seems a lot less harming than “Bambi 2″ (it’s just an example, I never watched it and it looks like it has decent animation, but the mere concept of a “Bambi 2″ is wrong from the very beginning).

    That’s abot the concept. Now about the actual movie, I don’t really like the teaser, but I think it probably will be ok. Not great, not awful, like Cars 2 or Cars Toons.

    I watched a couple of Tinkerbell movies and they weren’t a bad product. Tinkerbell’s personality is not the same from the original Peter Pan movie, but the animation, script and general tone are pretty good. It’s made for the money but they took some care in it. Hunchback Of Notre Dame 2, this is not.

  • John

    Yay animated in the Toon Disney Studios in India, who needs American jobs!

  • Lucas Nine

    Disney´s revenge on Tex Avery

  • Tim Hodge

    Walt coined the phrase “You can’t top pigs with pigs!” after the sequel to his most successful short ever flopped. Still, he was not adverse to knowing a good thing when he saw it, and made “Davy Crockett and the River Pirates” after the first episode was such a hit. And his studio also made all the Love Bug sequels along with the Dexter Riley anthology.
    But generally, Walt’s pervading philosophy was ‘happily ever after’ means the end. Period.

    However, the business world of Hollywood has changed. The key to success is now seen as creating a blockbuster franchise. You don’t have to look any farther than the bargain DVD bin at WalMart to know that I speak the truth. From Godfathers to Chipmunks, they’re all seen as cash cows. And if they didn’t turn a profit somewhere down the line, studios would stop. Of course in the arena of children’s films and TV, the profit by and large comes from licensing revenue more than ticket and DVD sales.

    Lassiter and his compatriots worked hard to get where they are. About 30 years ago he was fired from Disney, followed by long hours spent in small cubicles with primitive computing power. None of this was simply handed to him. If any one of us is so dissatisfied with his performance, we are more than welcome to start our own studio and do things the ‘right’ way.

    Meanwhile, if one doesn’t care for a film or DVD, one simply does not have to watch it.

    Sadly, the more ‘crap’ that is produced also means fewer of us animators get a chance to work on a film we can be proud of. Such is the constant statistic of our industry…and of all of the TV and film industry. Very few of us will have more than one or two resume entries that are chart toppers. But if you’ve paid your bills and fed your family, you can be proud of your career.

  • You might find this interesting

    Ed Catmull in 2007, discussing the creation of Toy Story 2: http://youtu.be/k2h2lvhzMDc?t=14m25s

  • Bob

    “Planes” may be a DisneyToon feature, but Pixar is involved at least a little bit. After all, a “Planes” character was in “Cars 2″. And I have a strong hunch that the “Air Mater” short on the “Cars 2″ Blu-ray is, more or less, a teaser trailer for “Planes”.

    • Dennis Morgan
    • Funkybat

      Heh…the “Blue Angels”-like stunt planes in that trailer look like militarized cousins of Southwest Airlines planes, based on their livery…

  • http://www.spiteyourface.com tony mines

    AH HA HA HA!

    http://www.creativeheads.net/JobDetails.aspx?JobID=10460

    HA HAR HAR *snort* guhHA HA HA!

    oh.

    oh deary me (single tear).

    *snort*

  • http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/index/ truteal

    Whenever John Lasseter does something corporate whorish, I always say in my head “the price of Hawaiian shirts must have gone up”

  • http://pickledperfection.blogspot.com/ Andrea

    When I was a kid, some of the shorts I really loved were The Little House, Susie the Blue Coupe and Little Toot. All 3 are shorts about inanimate objects with a point of view who are experiencing some sort of adventure. The concept/story work by Bill Peet and their old charm made them memorable for me. It’s interesting to have shorts about machines/objects done with a more “crude” form of animation than CG. Planes and Cars feel so new and crisp and clean, so perfect and controlled… I feel Cars worked and it had some of that charm… There is some slick eye candy in the Planes trailer but watching this trailer makes me crave something a little more simple or hand crafted. While I watch this trailer I am actually drawn out of it by noticing how “real” some of it looks.

    • Was My Face Red

      Spot on! I think that’s one of the reasons I find the carrier footage so alienating. I’m watching war in the Gulf not being taken to a new world.

  • Caitlin

    A Disney/Pixar Film With a White Zombie soundtrack?!?!?! Never thought I’d see the day

  • 1995

    Bringing back the 1995 smash hit by rob zombie, how original!

    • Funkybat

      I have to admit I hadn’t heard that one in a while….

      At least is wasn’t Blur’s “Song 2″ or some other more recently overused “action sequence” music.

  • http://zigrafus.mx Carlos Ortega

    I prefer this over cars 2 actually… I always thought the cars concept was a bit dull, cars 1 has never been a favourite of mine (but I believe it is a gorgeous piece of art, no less, hats off!) therefore I never watched cars 2, but I guess it is mainly because I´m a big fan of aircrafts, vooorooooooommmmm!!!! ratatatatatata!!!!

    peace and cheers ;)

  • Ger

    You think that Pixar could have come up with something more creative than this.I hope they are not just making this to sell more toys and merchandise (like cars 2).

  • http://bobrob.blogspot.com/ Bob Hilgenberg

    Looks like a lot of fun. Obviously I like the idea of keeping people working as much as possible over at DTS. It may not be a Pixar film but it’s certainly as close as you can get to a Disney/Pixar co-production. JL uses his Pixar story people quite regularly to consult and stay pretty involved in these films. And like like Tim Hodge said, people are paying their bills and feeding their families.

  • Nevan

    Prana Studios from India is doing the entire thing, just like the Tinkerbell Series.

  • http://bobrob.blogspot.com/ Bob Hilgenberg

    Yes, Nevan, PRANA is doing the animation. BUT, every other aspect of the film is produced at Disney/DTS. It includes, Story/script, story boarding, animatics, art direction, visual development, character design, editorial, music, sound, casting, etc….hundreds of local Disney artists working on all of these films, one after the next.

    I might add, PRANA is not out on an island just shipping animation without input. The directors and producers spend months in India overseeing all of the crucial final aspects of the animation process. That’s not to say PRANA isn’t doing a great job, they are…some amazing animation, actually! Cheers!

    • Funkybat

      I’m not dead-set against “overseas” work, but it would be nice if it were at least a subsidiary of Disney itself. I still mourn for the Paris and Australia Disney TV animation studios.

  • http://pierreportfolio.blogspot.com/ Pierre

    Eric Schwartz did a whole series of AeroToons on an Amiga back in the early 1990s.

    http://youtu.be/5ETIB5Iy9A4

    I guess there are no original ideas!

  • http://www.hobsonanimation.com Kevin

    First Cars and now Planes. What’s next, Trains? Boats? The possibilities are endless.

    Personally, I’ve always found Putt-Putt more original and entertaining than Cars.

  • Abu

    You would thin that after ALL these years with Pixar that Disney would finally catch to what makes great movies and lo and behold the one film to inspire them is Cars 2! Kerching.

  • Ashleigh

    Jeez, some of you guys need to get a life. It’s a kid’s movie.

    Anyway, my son adores planes and I’m excited for him to see this movie. There’s not many younger kid friendly films about airplanes out there. I think it’s a great premise, I will definitely be buying for my kid.

  • Jack

    How about waiting until the film comes out before you all completely tear it apart. Disney is making this for kid’s enjoyment – and yes, to make money. It’s not that complicated. You think my 8 year old nephew cares about whether this is coming from Pixar or another division of Disney? He will buy the movie and want all the toys and enjoy playing with them. Is that so horrible?! Why does this make some of you so angry? And let’s not forget about all the people in this country who are employed by Disney (and this film) and are fortunately not on the unemployment line…Everyone relax!!

  • Jack

    How sad for Disney? Have you not read about the billions of dollars the CARS franchise brings in every year. Yes, I’m sure Disney and their stockholders are just devastated at the thought of another potential cash cow. How awful! ;)