Disney’s “Planes” trailer

As reported here back in February, here’s the trailer for Disney’s spin-off of Pixar’s Cars – an original direct-to-video movie called Planes:

UPDATE: Disney has removed the trailer from You Tube


  • bucket

    FINALLY DISNEY AND ROB ZOMBIE ARE ONE

    the acting in this is pretty much on par with the cliche acting in all those these other CG films though, i bet theyre really proud of that

  • http://fruitcomputer.com Mac

    Why don’t give this guys a shot at the big screen??
    I know Disney Toon is focused on spin-off DTV but this studio is increasing in quality every time, Piglet’s is the second best Pooh movie to date if you ask me. And Planes look like it could be a theatrical hit if Disney bet on this guys. The reason why there aren’t many hits from this Studio is because they are forced to make spin-offs.
    Right now the only part of Disney under-delivering is Disney Television, with the sole exception of Jake (the Pirate), Jungle Junction although a good show it’s not Disney’s but a Spider Eye Productions show.

    • Anonymous Animator

      Phineas & Ferb and Fish Hooks are hardly under-delivering

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

        Correction: “Phineas and Ferb” is not under-delivering, but “Fish Hooks” is. What a lame Spongebob ripoff.

  • http://fruitcomputer.com Mac

    (FIX: This guys got great movies, some that at least to my taste are hits: Tigger! Goofy!)

  • Toonio

    Lots of noise and loud music yet seems plain.

  • Mike Russo

    …why?

    • B.Bonny

      It’s the Tinkerbell DVDs for boys. Expect the character models in your local Disney store soon – right next to the Tinkerbell T shirts and coffee mugs.

  • DisNO PixARGH

    The men who were once idealists are now fat old capitalists.

    • Teafly

      I’ve heard at least 2 interviews with Ed Catmull where he mentioned the production of “Toy Story 2″ originally being a direct to video movie, & how they put a stop to that because they didn’t want two separate teams, one working on the ‘good’ films and another working on the ‘crap’ ones.

      I guess those days are behind us now. PIXAR now has a boutique studio in Vancouver that can do the ‘crap’ films now.

      Out of sight, out of mind?

      • Justin

        This is not done by Pixar Canada. It is produced by Disney Toon Studios and animated by Prana Studios.

  • http://www.gloriousbounty.com Edward J Grug III

    I would love to hear what the people at Pixar are saying behind closed doors on this one.

    • Ju-osh

      “At Pixar, the most important thing is the STORY…” (c)(tm) John Lasseter’s PR.

      • Was My Face Red

        Maybe they could do a spin-off film called STORY TOYS about a gang of books with faces?

      • http://ramapithblog.blogspot.com David Gerstein

        I remember when that was called THE PAGEMASTER, and it was as bad as you make it sound.

  • James Ciambor

    This is a testament to the fact that Pixar is lightyears ahead of Disney creatively, Disney tries to improve their product by plagarising their own subsidiary. Why not be proud of the fact that you have an profitable artistic domain and call it a day.

    • K.A.Healy

      how do i down vote? :)

      i would take 75% of all disney films over any pixar film, and i like pixar! well the old pixar anyways.

      • Gobo

        Not sure what you mean by the “old Pixar”. Would that be Pixar before The Incredibles? Pixar before Up? Or WALL-E? What about Pixar before Toy Story 3, the top-grossing and best-reviewed film of 2010?

      • K.A.Healy

        true this could use clarification.i love the originality of the films up until The Incredibles. and Cars looked like it was modelled after the chevron commercials. i love WallE and UP is good also but they seemed to lack in the creativity and more emphasis on the sentimental ” we want people to cry” kinda of entertainment.I can go on and on but that is what i mean, the old original, truly creative pixar.

  • http://www.ronimation.com Ron

    Who’s voice is that as the single prop plane? It sounds like Dave Foley but I’m not sure.

    • Azz

      Considering how financially screwed Dave Foley is I hope so.

  • Mark Sheldon

    Ugh. Pixar you stayed clear of the direct-to-video market for 12 films.

    I’ll err on the side of optimism and say I’m leery. At least they’re only messing with my least favorite franchise from the studio…

    • Jim

      You’ll notice that Pixar’s name isn’t on this one. It’s not a Pixar show.

      • Mark Sheldon

        I did notice the sole “Disney” above the title… But that’s the resistance I’m referring to. I guess the direct product from ToonDisney is better thn the 90s fare. But I fear any cheapquel hurting the Pixar brand. Regardless of the studio.

      • Skeptical

        Regardless of the ‘brand,’ this is John Lasseter’s baby all the way. He micromanaged this project from start to finish.

  • Saturnome

    I guess they need to sell plane toys along with the cars. I’m not sure it’s worth making a film to justify this though.

    For some reason the cloud at left at the trailer’s end looks like a plane. Incredibly clever, isn’t it?

  • Laaaaaame

    Who’s animating this Shite? Pixar, or Disney? Its starting to look like Thomas the Train…..

    Sad.

    • 2011 Adult

      Toon Disney. The same studio from Tinkerbell.

  • Next Movie: Trains

    “Shoot me now!

    • Next Movie: Toilets

      “They’ve had enough of your crap!”

  • Andrew

    Cars 2 should have been direct to video too. If you’re gonna sell out, just be up front about it. No use wasting the talents of some of the best people in the world by making the work on something that no one under the age of 9 will care about

  • Anon

    Prana is handling this…

  • Arthur
  • justin

    Huh. Up to this point, I hadn’t even realized that Pixar wasn’t part of this. I was pessimistic, then optimistic, then back to pessi. But at least it isn’t out til 2013, that kinda makes its sound like they’re not just squirting it out really fast just to make a buck.

  • Dr. Ivo Robotnik

    This is direct-to-DVD, but Puss In Boots is getting a theatrical release?

    NO, NO, NO, YOU’VE GOT IT RRRREVERSED!

    (that was like my first legitimate Robotnik quote i am so proud)

  • Budget?

    Does anyone know the budget of this or the budgets of any of the Tinkerbell movies?

  • mitten

    Wow! look at all the creative cynicism in the form of military shit, war planes, bombs, explosions, stealth bomber …can we look forward some surveillance drone humor? How about all those shots borrowed from Top Gun…

    but really, does nobody see how terrible this is? The single engine prop character looks cool, and the concept – in my opinion – is fine, but really within the context of war…do kids really need that?

    As a parent, I find this offensive.

    • Bud

      I wonder how many civilian deaths we’ll see in this film?

    • Sarah

      I am with you Mitten, its the militarization of culture all
      around. American culture thats is and if you can call it that too? The military culture of death! This show from Disney greenlit by no other than Mr. John Lasseter I assume is a perfect example of a common term called: predictive programming. AIMED in this case at children with the intetion of familirizing them with military hardware, bombs, jets, aircraft carriers, etc. Than when they grow watching USA bomb up other coutries, for them it will be a no brainer. After all they grew up watching FUN planes take off from carriers doing fun shit and laughing about it. Cant be that bad? Right? Than when they reach the age of their mid 20′s already so desensitiezed that the sight of bomb runs on innocent civilans – foreign kids, wont make them blink. Heck its arleady happening on US TV with the average citizen watching 5 hours of TV a day, where they fire more bullets in one month than in all of WWII combined… offensive, cheap, dangerous……. than what do you expect when the Disney stockholders are the same ones who also own cash in the stock of the arms industry. Makes sence since war and cheap entertainment are the only sectors still left in the US moving tons of dough left and right.

      • Doug

        A crop duster would have been much cooler …

      • http://www.bishopanimation.com Floyd Bishop

        Think of all the missed fart joke potential with that one!

      • Funkybat

        I would have enjoyed seeing more of airliners and less of warplanes, but I guess 60s jet-age nostalgia isn’t as big a seller as Top Gun-style rah-rah. I don’t think it’s a problem to include fighter planes in a larger world, and for all we know, that could be what the films actually turns out to be, but I guess when I imagined “Planes” I thought first of airliners and then maybe of biplanes and other antiques…

  • http://youtube.com/user/drexelboi1991 tedzey

    I don’t know what’s more upsetting. Cars having a sequel or that it’s direct to video spinoff looks better than the sequel!

  • http://www.patnlewis.com Pat Lewis

    You know, I can’t really complain about this too much. Disney’s going to put out direct-to-DVD stuff regardless; at least here they’re telling an original story and they don’t have to ruin any beloved classic characters to do it. They’re not even ruining “Cars,” really.

    I doubt it’s my cup of tea, but the production values look decent, it’s not taking any resources away from Pixar, and Lasseter is still overseeing it, right?

  • Geneva

    There’s been worse direct-to-video entertainment about creepy anthropomorphic planes.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl5xdhRXlRg&playnext=1&list=PLF3BFE63EA5E72788 Whatta gem!

  • buh

    anyone else think it’s weird that they chose military planes? children’s characters with missiles strapped to them, etc

    • T Kelling

      No.

      But the pussification of America would certainly like everyone to think its a problem

    • orly

      I’m sure they chose what they were told will sell best by Market Research-fighting planes.

    • Justin

      I remember watching and playing with G.I. Joes, He-Man, and Transformers as a kid. This is tame compared to those.

    • cijfer

      Pixar’s first movie had a whole bunch of soldiers in them.

  • Steven M.

    Is this really necessary?

  • Scarabim

    Oh, come on. What’s wrong with war planes? My brother and I played with models of those when we were kids. Dissing them is like dissing G.I Joe.

    Now, having said all that, I have no use for this flick, and I groaned aloud when I saw the trailer. But I bet my nephew’s gonna love it.

    Still, it hurts to see Disney, once an innovator, turning to cannibalism and corporate acquisition rather than imagination for its product. The legacy of Walt is dead…

  • Clint H

    Meh, looks interesting. Not a fan of planes, but still.

  • Anthony D.

    I’m a little impressed with this.

  • K.A.Healy

    to all those saying its not a pixar film its disney, john lasseter runs both companies. its his call no matter which company it comes from. He has not defamed pixars name, but he has defamed the company that fired him so long ago. im not saying he has some diabolical plan but at the same time.. i kind of think that a bit.

    just look at him making his characters at disney, the loads of pixar characters everywhere in disney parks and the fact that “princess movies” were all shut down at disney and then pixar is suddenly making one. it doesnt really look like hes trying to help disney at all. i have no proof of course but its just what i see.

    i do believe that lasseter is past his prime and is now in it for the money

    • Gobo

      I’m not clear as to your point, actually. Yes, John Lasseter is the CCO of both Pixar and Disney Animation, so this movie falls under his leadership; he’s also the creative head of Imagineering. Disney owns Pixar, so why is it surprising that Pixar characters are featured in the Disney parks alongside other Disney characters? The movies he’s overseen at Disney and Pixar have been hugely successful, for the most part, and the Parks are getting a much-needed creative overhaul. And that’s “diabolical”, and shows he’s trying to hurt Disney?

      • K.A.Healy

        the creative over-haul was in the works before lasseter took over.

        and you seem to think successful means make a lot of money. and if yes then your right, they make a lot of money, but will they last the test of time? hey gobo, dreamworks pictures make a lot of money too, the diffenece is disney usually makes movies that people will watch 60+ years later and they didnt make any money while in theatres. thats what i call success

  • http://rodtejada.wordpress.com Rod Tejada

    Im still shocked about Disney using a Rob Zombie song…

  • tonma

    watching this I got a flashback to some years ago when I saw Lightning Mcqueen’s eyes for the first time and felt they looked plain cheap.
    Those eyes still don’t work for me after all this time.

  • Vzk

    Will this get a theatrical release outside the US like Bambi II or the Tinkerbell movies?

  • Chris

    I can’t wait for the “Planes” spin-off, “Boats”. I’m going to start working on it now.

    • MichaelDair

      Or a spin-off about household appliances, like toasters and such…. oh wait .. er.. um … never mind.

    • Was My Face Red

      I’m doing ‘Trains’ and ‘Bikes’ and ‘Scooters’ and ‘Rollerblades’ and ‘Supermarket Trollys’ … actually that last one might be fun.

      “He was the runty trolly with the wobbly wheel who was afraid to cross the Kmart parking lot, but on the day the local strett gang stole him and dumped him in the river he began an amazing journey that would take him all the way to Maceys and his dreams.”

  • http://Juanmanimation.blogspot.com J.m

    To all the people complaijong about how CRAZY of an idea is watch Walt Disney’s SALUDOS AMIGOS….and then STFU

  • http://elblogderg.blogspot.com Roberto

    The song seems too loud and Dreamworks-ian but other than that I kinda agree that it kinda looks more entertaining than Cars 2. Sure the animation would be a little worse, but when it comes to Planes and Cars it really does not make a lot of difference if they spend more bucks in the animation. They look equally rigid to me.

    I doubt this is not Pixar or Lasseter idea. Maybe that would be more believable when Pixar and Disney were different companies, but how can a Cars spin off not be Lasseter’s idea? He seems to love that franchise so much. To me it looks like they just don’t put Pixar name to make them look better.

    But maybe I’m totally wrong. I don’t remember what the press release said…any information about this being more a Pixar or a Disney idea?

    Anyway, I can’t help but think Lasseter was the guy who wanted to end with dvd sequels, but as long as they are spin offs of their less interesting franchises I don’t really mind that much. Spin offs are kinda more imaginative than sequels.

  • http://www.elliotelliotelliot.com Elliot Cowan

    This doesn’t look better or worse than a million other films.
    What’s the problem?

    • snip2354

      The problem people have with this is that it shows that Lasseter isn’t above valuing original titles in order to save two of the greatest animation studios in the continent after taking the reigns for both. It just seems like he’s more interested in money these days, but people need to stop and realize that is exactly what makes studios able to function! This trailer just looks like a PARODY of Pixar films!

      • http://www.elliotelliotelliot.com Elliot Cowan

        Save?
        What do they need saving from?

      • Funkybat

        Creative decline, though in the case of Pixar, it’s more about preventing decline than rescuing from a decline that already happened. Disney needed a jolt and got it after buying Pixar. The trick is trying to keep Pixar and Disney distinct, while still putting enough time, attention, and funds into animation at both studios that they both stay strong. The risk is that Disney will once again let animation falter, and/or that Pixar will become what Disney was in the 70s-80s, or late 90s-2000s.

      • http://www.elliotelliotelliot.com Elliot Cowan

        Well thank god I have you guys to explain these things to me.
        Where would I be without you?

  • Mic

    I don’t understand “Cars” and “Cars2″ is certainly hard to comprehend. But “Planes” blows my fucking brain off.

  • Mat H

    Wow! They didn’t want to put their name on it. I think that says something.

    • snip2354

      Pixar never put their name on it because they’re not producing it.

      Toon Disney never put their name on it because they NEVER do.

  • Was My Face Red

    Oh God ,why take the selling militarism to children route Disney/Lassiter? Those are war plances, but of course we won’t see what they’re actually built for, just a lot of Top Gun references and maybe a big bad mad plane who can accidentally falls to his death at the end. I’m not taking a pacifist stand here (sometimes you gotta do what you’ve gotta do in this nasty world) but why make the alternative to fairies and princesses, missiles and explosions?

  • kol

    next movie: Dildos.

    • Vzk

      Leave that for a Toy Story spinoff.

      • Funkybat

        MadTV already covered that…

      • Teafly

        Of course they did..

  • http://bruandboegie.co.za Mike

    I was pleasantly surprised with this trailer. I was hoping for something horrid but I kind of like it. Maybe its because I didn’t really like Cars too much. I’d watch it. Looks pretty decent actually. (Those cars though … me no likey. Maybe its the eyes but I just couldn’t empathize with the characters … at all, really. Maybe their mouths are too far away from their eyes, like the animals in Madagascar. I think to successfully pull off emotion the mouths need to be closer to the eyes. The Incredibles, though, I freaking LOVED.)

  • JMatte

    I can almost hear the toy companies in a meeting:
    “According to our latest group test with boys 8 to 12, they really want more flying stuff. Planes are definitely “toyetic”! Make a plane spin off!”.
    Guh.
    That being said, some of these action shots are pretty sweet. Looks like the team did a good job. I’m not too excited about it, as the subject doesn’t grab me, but I can appreciate the work behind it.

    I can almost imagine the next toy company meeting:
    “Okay guys, what next? Trains? Space rockets? Oh no, no! Tanks! Tanks shoot stuff! We definitely need something that shoots! Definitely “toyetic”! Kids will love it!”

    I hope I’m wrong. But if we do see tanks, I claim first!

  • Simon

    Rockets would be good next. Trains is kinda a done thing. Subs may work.
    I prefer this coming out of the Indian and Asian animators than Disney’s Tinkerbell that doesn’t act like Disney’s Tinkerbell.

    • 2011 Adult

      Tinkerbell was animated by Indians and Asians too.

  • John

    Yay made in India, you can kiss your American jobs good bye!!!

  • http://Juanmanimation.blogspot.com J.m

    That’s not Flying Pixar….That’s falling with style!

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

    I’ve seen enough of the project over the past year or so to say that I think the film will be quite good! Klay’s a really good director and I sense JL has a lot of faith in him. I have to laugh when I read people being funny by posting “what’s next boats, trains, etc.?” Well, if you follow things around here, those are actually excellent guesses! ;)

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

    This raises as many questions as the CARS movies, which I asked at length already and nobody answered. Giant optic nerves, political/religious issues, biology, etc.

    • Matthew Bell

      FACT:
      You Don’t let your fictional creations get bogged down in unnecessary explanations & “logic” via ‘critic over analysis’ and the extrapolation of ‘the fictional element or device’ in “real world” (IE: beyond the screen) terms.
      It’s a movie, it’s a cartoon, what’s on the screen is ‘to be seen as presented’. If you can’t accept it then I guess you’ll just have to DEAL WITH IT.

      You DON’T have to LIKE the context or the premise, but you DO have to ACCEPT that it is a viable means to creating fictional elements & telling fictional stories. Or would you prefer xeroxes of reality transposed into an animated medium?
      One of the biggest physiological issues with “dimensionally created images”, (IE: CG-3D) is that it’s very difficult to be representational, because 3D-CGI’s greatest strength is its dimensionality & tendency for detail & “realism”.
      I hope some smart film maker somewhere decides to change all that and do “something else” with it one of these days, because if not I will (or die trying).

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

        It’s just frustrating that the CARS and PLANES films ignore the obvious, compelling opportunities for body horror presented by their own scenarios, including:
        AUTOMOTIVE CENTIPEDE (FIRST SEQUENCE)
        RE-CARBURETOR
        TETSUO, THE FLESH CAR

        …and so on

  • Palmer

    I’m actually looking forward to this one. More than Cars 2, anyway.

  • Annabel Cole

    From PIXAR’S ONE CAB’S FAMILY TOLD WITHOUT IRONY to DISNEY’S LITTLE JOHNNY JET TOLD WITHOUT IRONY. Eventually we’ll have the entire Busy World of Richard Scarry. And then we’ll wonder why older viewers are leaving the brand(s) in droves. Gee, could it be…

  • Kendra

    Am I the only one who thinks that the rendering looks pretty good for a direct to video? I mean sure, I’m never going to want to watch this….ever….but for what it is, it doesn’t look bad. Little kids are going to eat this up :P

  • Arturo

    “From The world below Cars…. Toilets”

  • http://www.andrewchesworth.blogspot.com Andrew Chesworth

    Reminds me of Disney’s ‘Pedro’ short, as well as the AMAZING World War II plane comic from the “Torch Tiger” comic anthology that all the great Disney artists contributed to last year.

  • Mister Twister

    No.     

  • MrMister

    I already knew it wouldn’t be up to par with Pixar’s movies, but they just HAD to use the classic “Dreamworks Face”. What the hell makes it so popular among CGI studios anyways?

    • Dr. Ivo Robotnik

      *Raises eyebrow and crooks grin*

      OH GOOOD MY FACE

      AAAUGH

  • http://www.artware.mx Arturo

    From the studio that bought that other studio that created “Cars”…

  • Paulie J. Waddle

    Didn’t they already do something with a plane?

  • Ryoku

    I wonder what kind of personality they’d give a MIG-15 Fagot.

  • Anoniguy

    Honestly? This looks kind of cool. I know it’ll be about the ‘lovable loser’ airplane, as these stories always are, but WOW, the action with those fighter planes and stealth aircraft. That looked amazing. As did the on-deck scenes. I’m looking forward to this.

  • http://www.kicreativestudio.blogspot.com Ki Innis

    Sorry to say I was never a fan of “Cars”. Design-wise it reminded me of Tex Avery’s “One Cab’s Family.” Now they’ve dropped the other shoe with “Planes”. (Tex Avery’s Little Johnny Jet)

    …anyway, I see no Pixar name on this. Since Disney apparently has had lackluster results with all its CG properties, is this a hustle to get some of Pixar’s success to rub off on them?

    Stupid question…..of course it is.

    (Message to Disney’s: Read the writing on the wall fellas, you DON’T have to bend over backwards to do CG. Try something different that will set you apart from everyone else—-go back and develop your handdrawn animation.

    You won’t have to apologize for it and everyone will love you for it. Trust me.)

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

    Wow, this film is really gonna suck.

  • http://qwertypictures.deviantart.com/ Christopher

    Truthfully, honestly – That WAS cool. Maybe it’s ’cause I have an admiration for anthropomorphic machines, but this will be a very interesting mini-movie to see.

    Plus, come on. It’s Pixar – they’re going for quality, people!

    Personally speaking, I do wonder how Pixar would handle a “TRAINS” or “BOATS” movie… =)

  • http://www.lioneltrainssets.com Lionel Trains

    Lionel has long been a name in model trains for a long time.They’ve got numerous unique sizes and variations for everyone. With the agency dating back again towards the early 1900′s, they can be however a popular pick for a lot of. They have had their share of issues, but they are nevertheless here and right here to stay.