‘Toy Story 4.’ It’s Happening!


Toy Story 4.

Story conceived by John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, and Lee Unkrich.

Rashida Jones and Will McCormack will write the screenplay.

Lasseter directs.

Releasing on June 16, 2017.


  • J.S

    That was unexpected.

  • ZZ

    I, what? What’s going on? Why are you doing this to me?

  • confusion

    Oh boy, more Pixar sequels.
    I thought the whole idea of them making all the Toy Story specials and shorts was to keep the characters in the public eye without the need for further films and spoiling what was a perfect ending in 3?

    • Barrett

      That *was* the idea, and it worked perfectly. I was actually hoping they would ratchet down the number of shorts, revisiting them every year or two was pushing it as it is, even if most of the shorts were great. This full-on fourth film business…..I don’t even have words for the creative bankruptcy this suggests has set in with the “brain trust.”

      I guess it’s a case of “be careful what you wished for.” Disney bought Pixar because they needed a creative transfusion. It worked. Disney is much stronger creatively now than it was in 2005-06. But the blood drawn out of Pixar in turn weakened it so that it is now almost as sick today as Disney was in 2005-06.

    • Mesterius

      Well, of course not. The specials and shorts now function as a way of keeping the characters in the public eye while waiting for the next feature. And since Toy Story 4 has been in development for the past couple of years, it’s been that way for a while.

  • http://www.youtube.com/FelineDelegate FelineDelegate

    Is this real?

  • rooniman


  • May1979

    To paraphrase the late great Frank Zappa, The Toy Story franchise isn’t dead but it’s starting to smell funny.

  • http://www.dougvitarelli.com Doug Vitarelli

    they’re bringing in the A-Team

  • Mister Twister

    I’m not going to watch it.

    Cause I don’t wanna.

  • William Bradford

    Oooh I have reservations (haha as i’m sure most do). NOW having said that I had reservations about the 3rd film, and that had some of the best moments in a Hollywood animated film: most disturbing villain, HEAVY climax and very bittersweet ending”. HAVING said that, they really had a different place to go with number 3 by having the kid grown up and having their way of live ending and having to move on. Where can they go with a 4th that could top that? I’d much prefer they stuck to doing more shorts and specials to keep the franchise going. BUT Pixar has a few films in between to build up my confidence with (fingers crossed)

  • Googamp32

    I’d say that a fourth “Toy Story” movie would kill all most all of the emotional weight of the third one’s ending, but the shorts and TV specials have already done that, so, sure! I want to see “Toy Story 4″! Let’s have Gonzo be right about something for once!

    • white vader

      The old “sequel spoils the original” argument. Which never makes any sense to me. The earlier films don’t change from what they were, and they’re not responsible for the baggage you bring to them. Just sit the next one out, and you’ll be ok. People whined and moaned about Ts 2 and 3 as well.

      And makes no sense when everyone who hates Pixar sequels then turn around and scream for more Incredibles.

      • Kyle_Maloney

        the incredibles was the only one of their movies that directly leads into a potential sequel, they ended going right into the next battle. Its also a lot easier to make a case for a movie that only had one versus a trilogy that feels complete.

        • http://tresportfolio.tumblr.com/ Tres Swygert

          I think it would be more of a challenge for The Incredibles to do a sequel (though I wouldn’t mind watching it – as long as BRAD BIRD is both writing AND directing it).

          The reason being is majority of the Parr family resolved their individual and group problems throughout the first film. Violet is not shy anymore, Bob (Mr. Incredible) has learned to appreciate his family more and to make sure they’re a part of his life, and you have Dash seeing the reality of what it means to have those powers.

          To see the new challenges each of these characters to face personally and/or together is intriguing, and I do want them to succeed in that realm of storytelling. AND to have more Frozone in the film! Maybe to see his wife Honey do some action? lol

      • Raspyberry

        Different standards.
        An Incredibles sequel just feels more relevant to today’s hollywood and hey, it’s been a decade since the last…
        Let’s wait another decade to release that ;P

        Plus, I assumed Wreck-It Ralph (regardless of studio, still under the Disney branch) took over TS’s place.

        A lot of those people who “hate Pixar sequels”, recalled this franchise got closure, noticed Pixar’s recent slump in features, and thus have shown “hesitance” toward this news.

      • Ravlic

        When you set out to expand something, then you’re relying precisely on that baggage. It’s the baggage that got people to watch these characters again, if you’re relying on it to draw in the audience, then the audience is going to bring it with them.
        If you watch a kind man and next time the same character is a jerk towards everyone he sees, is this character still a good person in your mind?

        • white vader

          You’re talking the opposite of what I was saying, so no need to instruct
          me. You’re talking sequels. I’m talking people bringing their baggage
          from the sequels and bad reactions back to the original and saying it’s
          worse/ruined, when it’s the same as it always was, back when they liked
          it. If it’s a book, the words on the page don’t change. If it’s a film,
          the original is still the same. It hasn’t been “ruined”. It may be
          baggage that gets people to watch sequels, but I’m talking their bias
          when viewing the original again and saying it’s ‘changed’/ruined. When
          it should be honest subjectivity in saying their reaction against the
          sequels left them unable to see the first one without projecting their
          subsequent bias back onto it. The first one doesn’t deserve that bias.

          analogy makes no sense in context of “the original”. What I’m saying is these people met the kind
          man and – he was kind. Even if the man is a jerk later it doesn’t change
          that he was kind when they met him, that that first incident didn’t change
          just because he was a jerk later and therefore it’s ridiculous to say he
          was a jerk back then too. Hope that makes my point about ‘spoiling the original’ clearer.

          • Ravlic

            You are looking at a continuation and pretending it’s completely separate from what came before it. It honestly looks like you have some inability to connect past events to the present.
            And actually, the good man does change. Because it’s the same character, it means he always was capable or intent on being a jerk. As such, he can not be perceived as a truly good person. By your logic if you see a person petting a dog and next time he’s torturing it, he’s still a good person.

            In the same manner, characters change based on how they act later. Do you still see Hans or Lotso as good guys after the ending of their films?

  • George Comerci

    …this is awful! This completely ruins the trilogy’s perfect ending. Why is this happening?

  • Aveeva

    Should be interesting.

  • Roberto Severino

    This just really makes me sad on the inside to see an animation company that prided itself on innovation in the past whittle down to this in the past couple of years. I wish Pixar would just stop with all these unnecessary sequels and really try to be a lot more creative with their content again. I thought Toy Story 3 was a solid enough conclusion to those films. I really hope that they wake up and stop being so safe now and milking their franchises like this.

    I even think other CG animation studios have a run for their money now with what they’ve been doing and I’m much more excited in what they’re doing than for most of what Pixar has planned quite honestly.

  • Bored cat

    Eeeh I was kind of annoyed when I heard this but now I really don’t care. Thought the third one concluded everything rather nicely

  • Pedro Nakama

    In this film the Toys find out that Andy’s allowance was the same as all the other kids in the neighborhood due to some sort of Parental Allowance Agreement.

    • Ikas

      They find out that they were…made in china.

      • Ravlic

        Why doesn’t this have more upvotes? I’m dying here.

  • tjarmstrong

    Very stoked about this. Much more excited about this than “Inside Out”.

    They should be able to make as many Toy Story’s as their are Land Before Times before people get panties in a bunch. No reason to cut short possibilities with strong characters. I’d watch a million Toy Story films.

  • goshogolly

    But yet not everyone might have expected Toy Story 3 to be great! Pixar can often surprise us with gems :-)

  • http://www.omnaut.wordpress.com Omnaut

    A Bug’s Life two: A Bug’s Death.
    Coming next fall.

    • Shibes_Meadow



      Big Hero 7.

      Hollywood is not in the business of making movies. Hollywood is in the business of making money It’s called show business, not show art.

  • Tim Tran

    Theory: because WDAS is his favorite animation studio since childhood, he is noe head of it, so he wanna destroy the Pixar brand so it can be done with and he can focus on WDAS.

    Sorry, but this sounds terrifying to think about. They should have a different person taking care of Pixar. Brad Bird or any of the cofounders for example. Taking over 3 studios at the same time isn’t the right way.

    • Mesterius

      Much more likely conspiration theory: The Disney Company prefers the studio with their name in the title to make the most accclaimed films, so the executives are deliberately forcing Lasseter to produce lots of sequels at Pixar (sequels which simultaneously are huge money-grabbers, so it’s win-win).

      Or… conspiration aside, let’s simplify it to this: The Disney executives are deliberately forcing Lasseter to produce lots of sequels at Pixar. They don’t care about Pixar’s artistry or their reputation. They care about money. And the sequels are a sure-fire way of getting that money.

  • megadrivesonic


  • Matthew

    I hope they won’t go overboard with the Barbie and Ken stuff. I was not happy when I first saw the trailer for TOY STORY 3.

  • Brian Martin

    Oh, don’t be so negative.

  • Andrew Kieswetter

    I’d rather they not make a Toy Story 4. The third movie was a satisfying finish to the series.

  • Andre

    Darth Vader (about ‘Brain Trust’): “The Force is not strong with these ones.”

  • jonhanson

    I’m right with you, although I was willing to let the Cars sequels slide. I thought that was the deal, I mean Cars was fun but it wasn’t high art so there’s no real legacy to tarnish and they could use the profits from all those toy cars to make more original movies.

    But Toy Story 4? The original trilogy is one of the best ever created, up there with Star Wars, Lord of the Wings and even the Godfather, especially because even the third was well received.

    There’s also the fact that they’ve milked the dramatic nature of toys and their relationship with children pretty well. I mean as great as the trilogy was even the third felt like a bit of a retread. There’s only so many ways the toys can feel like they’re being replaced or forgotten only to discover that they have each other and it’s better to have loved and lost than never loved at all? I just see it turning into the later Shrek movies where they stopped feeling like films and more like overstuffed TV episodes.

    Why couldn’t they have stuck with those shorts they’ve been producing? Sure they’re just a shadow of the movies but it’s OK, shorts can be slight but those three original movies have set the bar damn high and I just can’t see the fourth as anything but Toy Story 4: The Search for More Money.

    As you say, it would be one thing if this was the only questionable thing but as you mention there has been a disappointing over-reliance on sequels, made all the more obvious by the sort of renaissance going on at Disney.

    It really is sad, but at the one upside is that even though Pixar may not be the sure-shot it once was we’ve seen a lot of good to great movies coming out from a wide range of studios so I don’t feel like any one has to hold the weight of theatrical animation on their shoulders.

  • jonhanson

    She wrote the movie Celeste & Jesse Forever and one episode of the recently canceled sitcom “From A to Z.” She also created a comic book series called ” Frenemy of the State.”

  • Kyle_Maloney

    That’s just weird to me. It wasn’t complicated. Everyone but Woody gives up on Andy for sunnyside daycare, they realize its in fact a prison run by the secret tyrant lotso, they overthrow him, almost get incinerated before getting saved by the aliens and return to andy, who passes the torch to bonnie and they all get a second chance to live a happy life.

    I would get it if you said Shrek 3, (I’m one of them), but not TS3.

  • Max C.

    I’ve been getting the feeling over the years that John Lasseter is now the George Lucas of animation.

  • The Creatively Bankrupt Make $

    A lot of folks have failed to walk away from their intellectual
    properties or franchises when the time was appropriate, especially if it
    was their big break or flag ship creation. And every one of them I know of has
    lived to regret it… perhaps not financially, but artistically.

    With a 4th Toy Story feature I think Pixar is Lost & Creatively Bankrupt. I could go on about all the reasons sequels & franchises become inbred, tedious, cyclical creations that smack of lost potential, or complain about folks like George Lucas. But that stuff is all too obvious so what’d be the point?

    At the end of the day I guess this whole licensing & film buisness stuff is all about the money money money. Hey… they gotta get Mr Bob Iger his 60-Million-Dollar-Bonus-Cheque somehow, right?

    • Barrett

      All of this stuff makes me respect and admire Bill Watterson even more. That man is the picture of artistic integrity.

      • Fried

        Does that mean the creator of Peanuts and Boondocks are sell outs because they chose to expand their characters beyond comic means?

        I guess so.

        How dare people use their characters in other mediums, no integrity I say!

        • Funkybat

          There’s a big difference between Aaron MacGruder taking the Boondocks from the comics page to TV animation. At the moment, that is the only other iteration of his original creation that exists. And many would argue that the show is stronger and more in keeping with what he wanted to say with those characters than a four-panel comic strip ever could be.

          As for Schulz, I suppose it’s all a matter of opinion. I admire what he created and consider the first three decades of work genius, but it’s undeniable that things tapered off after a while. It would have happened to Calvin and Hobbes as well if Bill W. had persisted for 3 or 4 decades, no one is an inexhaustible fount of great ideas. I too respect Bill W. because he knew this about himself and didn’t try to “beat the odds.” His absolute refusal to merchandise his characters also denied him untold millions, perhaps a billion or more, but that isn’t what he wanted for his creation. Does it make him a “better man” than Sparky? I suppose that’s a matter of opinion, too.

          I think it’s OK if someone wants to monetize their art, but I feel that if someone who is uncomfortable with that idea is pushed and prodded to do it, it’s ultimately bad for them and their creation. Schulz clearly had no qualms about it, and more of the world knows about his characters and is more likely to read the comics as a result of that exposure than they might if he had done otherwise. But consider how, to this day, Calvin & Hobbes is cherished like a shared experience by so many, like an indie film that isn’t exactly unknown but isn’t a blockbuster either. Again, it really is up to individuals to decide how to look at it, I don’t think there’s one wrong or right answer.

          • http://tresportfolio.tumblr.com/ Tres Swygert

            What I appreciated Schulz more was that even though he had many other media showcasing his characters (tv, film, broadway, music), Schulz still continued his main line of work in the comics, without help…all the way to the last strip (due to his health).

  • Yeow McCheeseBurger

    Making a third Toy Story installment ten years after the second film
    was already a huge gamble as it was, it’s a miracle it turned out as it
    did even given Pixar’s then near-perfect track record they had. The way TS3 wrapped things up was a sound conclusion to what had just become a trilogy while still leaving some room for the TV spinoffs/shorts-which are great additions to the existing series if I say so myself.

    A fourth film is not only going to really cheapen the ending the
    third film did, but is going to be a case of Disney/Pixar setting their
    own bar way too damn high as the already-existing trilogy Toy Story
    movies are essentially all cinematic classics. Given Pixar’s recent dip
    in quality, I’m expecting a fourth Toy Story film to be rammed with
    sequelitus up the ass rather than for Pixar to strike gold a fourth

    I don’t know if it’s Disney having (finally) exerted significant (if
    not complete) creative control over Pixar after all these years
    (presumably emboldened by their acquisitions of Marvel and Lucasfilm, I bet), or if it’s John Lassater wielding his executive power to order more sequels because it’s (supposedly) easier and more profitable than brainstorming more unique (if not entirely original) ideas for films; but consider me highly irritated and disappointed with this news all the same. Though I didn’t mind Toy Story getting a third film at all (and given how excellent it is, I’m happy that it did), The Incredibles was the /only/ Pixar film released that I genuinely wanted to see given another installment.

  • white vader

    I understand that you cannot understand it. I think a large part of it is because these people (I’m not just talking Pixar) put so much time effort and love into creating indelible characters – it’s not confusing to me at all that they’d be attached to them and want to return to them. Most of your arguments could have been levelled at Toy Stories 2 and 3.

    • http://tresportfolio.tumblr.com/ Tres Swygert

      I understand them doing it for the sake of business. I can also understand that there is a real desire for John Lasseter to want to do another Toy Story film for the sake of telling another story of his favorite characters.

      It still pains me, and many others, that a Toy Story 4 could possible ruin a great chapter that Toy Story 3 provided. As for the points of Toy Story 2 and 3, I could see your point. The reason I did not groan or get upset about those two films when hearing of their arrivals, is that Pixar was fresh as an animation studio for feature films and have been doing a great job with their first two. So I felt that Toy Story 2, while being a risk, would do a fine job, as Pixar really wanted to do a great work. For Toy Story 3, they did not rush into it, especially after taking it back from Disney (Disney planned to do a Toy Story 3 with another animation studio after it seemed that Pixar would end their partnership after Cars). Plus, the story of Andy moving on, and the toys wondering what will happen next was very intriguing.

      I ranted not out of the sake of not understanding business (as Fried thinks I am), but for the sake that Pixar stood and boasted of being an innovative company. It has been for most of their years, especially with their investor and CEO Steve Jobs being present and running the company before going back to Apple. Both Apple AND Pixar were created not to just rehash ideas, but to be innovative, risky, and to do great things (as Steve Jobs desired them too). The last few films from Pixar (Cars 2, Brave, and Monsters University) were not great. Even critics and the Academy (minus Brave) agreed on that (Monsters University didn’t even get nominated for the Oscars). To see them become more DreamWorks like now, it’s quite a shame. It almost feels as though, and I hope it’s not the case, that Pixar has peaked. If so, what a run, but it’s going to be a while before we have another studio do something as great, if not greater, than Pixar.

  • mick

    yes indeed, a very loud silence that sounds like everyone complaining

  • mick

    Right. So we all get old and then we cannae hack it anymore.

    That’s life. Mr Lasseter will now set about dismantling his own legacy. it’s the popular choice these days

  • Tre

    Even though I don’t really want a 4th movie, the whole love story thing makes me wonder if Bo Peep were to be brought back into the plot since she was written out the way she was in the 3rd film.

  • Chad Townsend

    I’d rather see Incredible’s Spin offs. Toy STory 3 was so much like a prison movie…. the fun went out the door for me

  • Fried

    Because smart about business and handling franchises doesn’t make you cynical, it makes you smart.

    Thinking you’re too good to make or appreciate a sequel makes you elitist, if anything.

    The third film wrapped up the trilogy nicely, but guess what, the franchise wasn’t a trilogy to begin with. So really, the first film wrapped itself up nicely. As did second. And then again third.

    Pixar has more evidence to suggest they know what they’re doing when it comes to Toy Story than anything against them, so I see no reason why I should believe Toy Story 4 will be terrible other than sequelitis because of OTHER companies.

  • Fried

    Artists not being businessmen is exactly why we get exploited in the first place. It’s why Disney can buy Winnie the Pooh and turn it into a franchise while the creator thought nothing of it, only doing it because of his love for illustrations, and is now out millions of dollars because of it.

    There is no reason why you can’t be a good artist and profit off your work. Artists should be encouraged to learn about franchising, marketing, and business so they can do what they love AND make full profit, rather than selling the majority of rights to their characters to a bigger company because they have no idea what they’re doing.

    Animated movies contribute to culture as just pure entertainment, if you think they’re doing anything more than that, you’re deluding yourself of the value of “Toy Story”. So if a sequel continues to entertain, than it’s providing just as much as the first one did.

    • Ravlic

      Spoken like a true businessman, huh?
      There’s a difference between being a successful artist and prostituting your work for money. Artists are meant to create new things. Businessmen are meant to milk one thing until it drops dead, then move onto another one.
      There’s also a huge difference between pure entertainment and films that are actually worthwhile. You can be entertained by watching paint dry. That doesn’t make a wall a good movie, nor does it mean that we should watch drying paint in cinemas.
      Making sequels is not what’s going to get Pixar out of a rut. It’s just going to further the gap in the general public’s memory between their last good original movie and what they’re currently putting out.

      • Fried

        When a person or company makes characters, they’re allowed to create stories with them as much as they want, ESPECIALLY if they are successful.

        So far, every single Toy Story-related thing Pixar has done has proven to be entertaining. I have zero reason to believe that the fourth will be terrible other than your elitist attitude that somehow anything with a number in its title means everyone working on it is a hack and a sell out. Especially considering that Toy Story was never a trilogy to begin with and that worked out spectacularly.

        Doing a sequel doesn’t mean you have no integrity and making sure a company’s characters are relevant doesn’t make you a sell out. It’s only when you force those practices with a bad franchise are you scrapping for the bottom of the barrel (See: Nut Job 2).

        If that were the case, then anyone should only ever plan to use their characters once or not use them at all. I guess that means any TV show that goes past a season (Or an episode for that matter) is beating a dead horse.

        • Ravlic

          “If that were the case, then anyone should only ever plan to use their characters once or not use them at all.”
          Except these characters were not meant to be used more than once. Do you understand the difference between a film like the first Lord of the Rings and something like Wall-E? There are stories that are meant to have a beginning and an end. Not all characters in animation benefit from expansion. They’re caricatures, they’re stylized. They and their world don’t have some undiscovered depth in them that can only be discovered through further introspection.
          All of Toy Story deals with the same thing and the same themes. They’re good films, but there’s only so far you can go when you’re limited like that. And after Pixar’s poor performance in recent years, I’m having serious doubts that they can make it a masterpiece.

          It doesn’t help that most sequels are made not because there’s more story to be told, but because these same characters will make more money just by virtue of being the same characters. Just because this can sometimes work doesn’t mean sequels don’t have work cut out for them when it comes to standing out and not rehashing the same thing over and over again.
          Also, every sequel you make you prevent an original work from existing. I would much rather see another original feature like the ones Pixar was known for, let people who actually have new ideas make them into films rather than trying to adapt these ideas to work with the old characters.

          • Fried

            “Also, every sequel you make you prevent an original work from existing. I would much rather see another original feature like the ones Pixar was known for…”

            Except Brave is lumped in with “Pixar’s recent poor performance” and that wasn’t very well received.

            So actually, a film’s quality is not determined by whether it’s a sequel. And when it comes to Toy Story specifically, they’ve yet to mess it up, so I still have no reason to believe they will make such a drastic decision that will destroy the franchise and make a terrible (Or even mediocre) film.

            Just because you are tired of the characters or believe “It’s impossible! Nobody can keep breathing life into this character!” doesn’t mean talented writers can’t pull it off.

            And in the case of Lord of the Rings, that was written primarily as a single book and split up for selling purposes, so that still is a single story. Toy Story 1 was meant as a single story as well, but guess what, they expanded on it and made it into a trilogy that was never planned.

            Hey, look at that, the case of the “sequelitis” has been subverted.

            But yeah, I guess since YOU said so and animation fans are upset, that should be evidence Toy Story 4 is bad, not Pixar’s history of how well they’ve been able to handle the characters thus far.

  • Lewis

    Pixar is creatively bankrupt, and I refuse to buy John Lasseter’s lies that it is a ‘filmmaker driven studio’. If that was truly the case and considering the amount of talented people at that studio who i’m sure would give everything to develop and direct their original stories and characters, why instead is it the same directors and concepts being regurgitated again and again? They are fast-becoming the most complacent studio in the industry. Four years ago I would never have thought I’d ever say this about Pixar but, Inside Out aside, I honestly could not care less about their future projects.

    • http://tresportfolio.tumblr.com/ Tres Swygert

      I lost the whole “filmmaker driven studio” when they dropped Brenda Chapman to Brave. After all the hoopla they made in the news to talk about her project as the first female director, then taking the project from her (when the film was less than a year away). The last few projects have been lackluster and not Pixar quality. Haven’t even bought the last three to add to my Pixar collection (of greatness).

  • Mesterius

    It was a huge mistake by Pixar to let Disney buy them back in 2006. The over-emphasis on sequels ever since proves that. Pixar should have stayed an independent company. Then perhaps, just perhaps, all this bullshit wouldn’t have happened.

    The purchase might have meant some good things for Disney’s animation studio (though it’s debatable to what extent)… but looking at the results for Pixar, I really just wish they hadn’t gone through with it. And the even sadder part? Pixar will probably never be free of Disney again.

    (For the record: Toy Story 3 went into development at Pixar in 2006, just shortly after Disney bought them. That should tell people something, even if the resulting film ended up excellent. And all the sequels that have been greenlit *after* 2006 should tell people even more.)

  • Justin CartoonSmart

    How many of the negative comments here are from people that have seen the post-Andy world with these toys (Partysaurus, Small Fry, Hawaiian Vacation, Toy Story of Terror) and realize Pixar is having more fun with this universe now than they probably ever did making the movies. This is not a franchise thats run out of ideas.

  • Chris Bennett

    Mixed feelings.

  • http://tresportfolio.tumblr.com/ Tres Swygert

    Thank you!

  • Barrett

    So in summary; Lasseter and the rest of the “brain trust” were once artists with a successful businessman backing them (Jobs) and have no become businesspeople with some artistic talent, albeit diluted by their putting business considerations before creative ones.

  • Barrett

    Miyazaki didn’t. Lasseter’s “hero” managed to go his entire career doing films that were;

    A: artistically acclaimed
    B: entertaining to millions of people
    C: iconic
    D: profitable

    Pixar’s closest things to “duds” money-wise were A Bug’s Life and Cars 2, and they both were wildly profitable. They also have managed to make even their less-than-stellar films like Cars 2 and Brave somewhat entertaining, at least more so than the majority of other contemporary animated films.

    Point is, even when Pixar isn’t trying very hard (or caught up in creative conflicts that harm the final output) they deliver. Why no try to swing for the fences again, like they did when they made A Bug’s Life, Monsters Inc., and The Incredibles? Why not try to do something that makes people’s jaws drop, instead of just meeting expectations with some new filagree on the edges? That’s what Miyazaki always did.

  • Barrett

    At least Parkinsons and the passage of time have prevented anyone from ruining Back To The Future with some needless add-on. Too bad they’re going to “reboot” Ghostbusters, but then that was never a trilogy, and the sequel was B- at best.

  • Steven Bowser

    Either this will follow them on new adventures with that little girl Andy left them with, or it will introduce some new set of characters.

    Somehow I doubt that they’ll ditch Woodie and Buzz though. The branding is too strong.

  • http://www.bobharper.com Bob Harper

    I’m indifferent about TS4 – I’m sure I’ll take my kids to see it. I find it funny though that we as an audience (myself included) sometimes have limits to how many stories we will tolerate with the same characters for the big screen, while having no problem with years or even decades of stories for TV shows with the same characters. Seems like James Bond is the exception.

  • Mesterius

    Keep in mind that Toy Story 3 went into development RIGHT after Pixar was bought by Disney in 2006. I’d say there is good reason to be cynical towards what has happened with the studio since Disney’s purchasing it.

  • Jacob Boelman

    For as original as Pixar wants to think themselves to be, the creative head of the company will now have been director of just as many sequels as original feature films :(

  • akira

    so those pixar dudes could conceive a story, but it takes a couple supporting actors part-time writers (of “A to Z” sitcom) to write the screenplay? we’ve come down a few notches from past Toy Story screen writers, IMO. does anybody know about how the screenwriters and board artists work together at pixar? I’m really glad lasseter is directing, and he’ll have a chance to either redeem his reputation or cement it. i’m really surprised he didn’t stick another director on the movie for a few years first before firing him and taking over. boy i wonder what would have happened if pixar had never let disney buy them out….. i’m looking forward to good dinosaur, at least

  • James VanDam

    The little girl will get lost in the woods and they toys will have to save her. At least that’s my prediction.

  • Ryoku Kero

    Forget Cars 2 and Toy Story 4, just look at all of the toys and junk cluttering up your basement. You have to be naive to think that Pixar isn’t into films for the money.

    Thing is, Pixars one of those rare companies that tries to put out a decent product, something that deserves to have millions of cheap China-slavery built toys made.

    Cars 2 and Toy Story 4 are fine by me, honestly, what turns me off is this whole “wage cartel” thing. If Pixars going to rake money in from disposable goods than they could at least give their artists competitive pay.

    I’ll sit this one out, I suggest that everyone else do the same and wait for Redbox.

  • Justin CartoonSmart

    When you get good at something (and make money from it) see if you quit. Think about if you wrote a comic strip series, published three great graphic novels but had more stories to tell, and someone said “quit while you’re ahead”.

  • Justin CartoonSmart

    Guess you haven’t seen anything they’ve done since that last movie.

  • Albert

    Its pretty amazing that Dreamworks has more original films on their slate than Pixar.

    • Vanessa Flores

      Psssh, oh, yes.

    • Kristen Ramirez

      While Toy Story might have some potential I can say Pixar might be only making sequels to help fund their bigger films, just a thought.

      On a side note DreamWorks is adapting Captain Underpants, let that sink in.

  • https://vimeo.com/channels/wharton Brett Wharton

    I just don’t get how one man can be creative director over four animation studios, and direct a movie at the same time! Cars 2 felt like it was phone in. I hope Lasseter doesn’t do the same here, or let the other studios falter. I guess he just delegates really well?

    Also, it’s sad that Pixar spent 15 years blowing people’s minds (and the box office) with their originality. Then they decided to dedicate the next 10 years to cashing in on… everything. What have they not sequelized at this point – A Bug’s Life, Up and Wall-E? I hope they can stick to making an original movie every year, and just have one sequel every other year… it seems like a better balance. Walt Disney made what, one sequel?

  • ThatGuy

    It’ll be Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull all over again. Not needed or wanted or necessary.

  • GW

    Thats not harsh, its just what we expect or at least used to expect from Pixar. Risk taking, fresh ideas, stories with heart.

    • The Original GW

      Just to clarify that person is not me, the person who usually goes by GW.

  • KW

    You’re missing the point. Its not about how much money they can potentially make off the movie.

  • Steambun bunny

    (┛◉Д◉)┛…….NO NO NO NO! Toy Story ended perfectly. Why do they need to make more and maybe ruin it. They should have focus on a new idea for a film than try to milk Toy Story dry.

  • Chris

    Funny he started off doing an anime franchise film, Castle of Cagliostro (Based on the popular Lupin III anime series).

  • Ryan Germy

    Does anybody else feel like Pixar’s lack of original material is deliberately planned to help restore Disney Animation as the leader in feature animation?

    • Kristen Ramirez

      That actually sounds accurate cause Disney had 3 #1 animated films of the year lately.

  • Fried

    Pixar’s reputation of being an amazing studio that has produced some of the most timeless films will still prevail, especially in the eyes of families (Their target audience) who don’t share the same “high standards” as the animation community and are excited for Toy Story 4.

    Our opinions on this matter is so minor they might as well be non-existent.

    • Ravlic

      Pixar gained their reputation precisely because the audience expects something more than brainless entertainment from them.

      • Fried

        They got their rep for making good films, regardless of them being sequels. Cars 1 + 2 are the only films that are regarded as being really lackluster.

        So aside from Cars, what has Pixar done that is considered brainless entertainment? Because even their sequels (Toy Story + Monsters) are quite good.

        Did YOU forget Pixar’s list of films when typing your own comment? Sounds like it.

        • Ravlic

          Are you pretending like their last 3 movies don’t exist?

          • Fried

            Monsters University I thought was great. Are you speaking of Brave, an original idea-not-a-sequel film? Is that the shameless entertainment you are talking about?

            Cars 2 was bad but guess what, so was the first one and it has nothing to do with it being a sequel but just boring characters to begin with.

          • Ravlic

            I and the people I know consider their last three movies utterly forgettable. MU felt like a generic DW underdog picture. Brave felt derivative, like Pixar trying to copy Disney by mixing a princess movie and Brother bear.
            Even if you liked these films, I think you’d agree that they don’t come anywhere near their previous works. They’re fillers just so people don’t forget Pixar exists until an actual good movie comes along.

  • Mesterius

    …evidence? Your “Pixar owns Disney” statement sounds ludicrous to me. The Disney company owns Pixar – lock, stock and barrell. Heck, the executives at the top can fire John Lasseter if they really want to.

  • Raspyberry

    I stand corrected. Kudos.

  • Hughlings

    ha. that’s so bad.

  • Funkybat

    I suppose (or hope, at least) that the new film will have less to do with their existential angst and more to do with their newfound bond with Bonnie, and that some inciting incident will threaten to break that bond. Of course, we have already had that with the excellent “Toy Story of Terror” so I wonder just what they have in mind for a “bigger” story. I personally wish they had kept going with the shorts and let 3 be the wrap-up of their cinematic adventures, but if they do #4 I hope it’s a really well done, for the sake of the franchise and the audience.

  • GuruJ

    Yeah, you’re right. Terry Pratchett should definitely have only made three Discworld novels and then moved onto something else since exploring a “well worn universe” is a waste of time.

    • Ravlic

      Are you saying that a world where toys are alive, but they play dead and no-one ever notices this or their curious misplacement is a good world for further exploration?

    • KW

      I’ve never read Discworld so I don’t know. Maybe he should have stopped at three books. Toy Story isn’t Discworld, Toy Story is Toy Story and it doesn’t seem worth exploring any more than it already has been. I don’t think there are many stories worth telling in that universe that warrant a full length feature.

  • Vanessa Flores

    I could never agree more…

  • http://tresportfolio.tumblr.com/ Tres Swygert


  • http://tresportfolio.tumblr.com/ Tres Swygert

    Maybe the shorts and specials were warm ups before going out there for a feature film? Like stretching and training before going for the marathon/race?

  • Vanessa Flores
  • Vanessa Flores

    My exact feeling. It’s… just no. No. Gosh, I’m sure my Disney fan friends would back up the film with those same excuses! My reply to them is, “Screw all those sugar-coating lies.. :P

  • K.

    Fried > as much as it hurts to say, that’s true and you’re right from the beginning.

    To the others > I can’t believe grown-ups in these comments that claim ethical values would think that a corporation in the most capitalistic sense of it would behave without maximum profits in mind.

    Isn’t the wage fixing cartel and the shut-down of the Vancouver unit not enough to convince you guys ?

    If optimism and passion are your reasons to make such claims make a change yourselves and stop clinging to gigantic corporations.

    That’s a straight up commie speaking. ;)


  • WarriorMermaids

    I’m wondering how they plan on doing it without making it repetitive, or with making it feel natural and not forced. Like you say, the ending of 3 felt final.

  • Tek A. Fountine

    I do not know what a Toy Story 4 will look like after the ending of the last one, but I fear it won’t have the same emotional touch. I mean, what are they gonna do with the toys? Their arcs are complete, all their issues have been resolved… I just can’t see what they could do with Toy Story after their 3rd film… But it’s PIXAR, I’m sure they have SOMETHING in mind, just hoping it’s not another “Cars 2″ kind of movie…

  • Darrell Wilson

    They will need a new cast of characters if this is going to work, otherwise it will feel forced. The third installment sealed the trilogy and made it complete, even more complete than LOTR.

  • http://tresportfolio.tumblr.com/ Tres Swygert

    Placing a quote that Peter Del Vecho, producer of Disney’s Frozen, said about Pixar, and starting to agree with him:

    “Pixar right now is struggling because obviously with the success of their original movies they’re doing a lot of sequels. But that also means at the same time they’re not coming up with original content. That’s the one thing I love about Disney Animation Studios now, is that we can.”