Disney/Pixar In General

Let's put it this way: Pretty much everyone would call Sesame Street a kids' show. It's geared toward children, written for children, has the express purpose of teaching children, and even prominently features children in some segments. It's also generally agreed that Sesame Street is entertaining for adults to watch as well, as it tends to be written with enough wit and charm that older audiences can find something to enjoy, even though they are not who the production is aming at.

Compare the various mainline Muppet media, like The Muppet Show or The Muppet Movie. Those shows and films are aimed at a more general audience. The jokes can be a bit more risqué, the situations more adult, but the characters are generally still colorful and appealing for children, the tone and plots aren't so far above the heads of children that they can't follow them, and the material is generally both not what one might consider too objectionable for younger audiences nor too pure and clean for older audiences.

Does this make sense?

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

I see. Understood.

Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.

Sesame Street is a preschool show, if you really want to be honest. Few people over the age of 6, except for Muppet fans, would ever be caught watching it. To equate it with children's entertainment in general is absurd.

What you want to call a kids' show would be something like, say, any given cartoon on the regular children's networks (excepting their preschool blocks). These fit your criteria of a "family show" pretty easily, with situations that are not over the head of children but with gags for the adults watching (well, the good ones maybe) - yet no one would ever call them anything but kids' cartoons.

The Muppet Show could easily be described as a family show - but that's because it was originally shown during primetime hours.

edited 16th Dec '16 3:38:41 AM by Aldo930

"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."

It's happening.

I still say we never needed a sequel to The Incredibles. I love that movie, but it worked fine on its own. Certainly I'm sure they may have hit upon a good idea for it (I imagine there will be themes of the family getting older, the kids growing up, Bob and Helen starting to grapple with newfound limitations they're encountering on their abilities as they age, etc.), but I never understood why people thought the movie absolutely required a sequel. I've seen some people cite the "cliffhanger" at the end of the first one as a reason, but that cliffhanger was so clearly not meant to be taken seriously (and even if it was, they released a video game to fill that void anyway), more as a "the adventures continue/begin" kind of thing.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

I think it's mostly because people wanna see Dash and Violet grow up or something. Probably also because it's apparently impossible to make an actually good Fantastic Four or Watchmen movie.

Also, that cliffhanger was already solved in the video game anyways.

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?

I mean, I won't deny that that'd be neat, but ehhhhhhhh. I'll still go see the movie when it comes out and I'm certainly looking forward to it, but it's more cautious optimism. I'm sure it'll be good, since Brad Bird doesn't really have any totally bad works on his record (even Tomorrowland had its great spots, flawed as it was), but we'll see.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

I mean, I think it's more deserving of a sequel than fucking Cars. Finding Nemo didn't even need a sequel (though I do think that Finding Dory is a rather good movie, despite not being of top tier quality). Monsters Inc was a film that people wanted a sequel for, and we instead got a prequel that's just kind of meh.

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?

I think it has better sequel potential than Finding Dory did. The film was entertaining and competent but ultimately failed to have the emotional strength of the first movie.

Meanwhile Monsters University was set up with a fairly uninteresting premise that it also delivered upon relatively competently, but it was not a movie that needed to exist by any means.

Both movies have some semblance of the "Pixar" touch where they have strong and unusual storytelling elements but were really not up to far with what they've produced.

In general I am not a fan of Pixar greenlighting this many sequels.

They promised to tone down the sequel thing so there's that.

Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.

Haven't seen Dory, University, or Cars 2, so I have nothing really to say about those, but I also never thought Nemo needed a sequel either.

Cars I can understand why they sequelized it, because it was fairly popular among children and easily franchisable (though I suppose you could argue the same for The Incredibles), plus Lasseter himself was really passionate about those movies apparently.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

As much as I dislike The Incredibles, I gotta admit its more beloved among adults and its more adult to boot.

Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.

I don't think 'more adult' it has an intelligent story,and people like that.

New theme music also a box

The Incredibles honestly is much better fit for a spinoff set in the same universe rather than an outright sequel.

Im glad you think that way. Especially after my rant about how Intelligent doesnt necesarily mean adult movie.

Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.

I mean, The Incredibles actually does have adult themes, though. Literally part of the plot involves Helen thinking that Bob is having an affair.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

... if anything, I keep saying The Incredibles is the Pixar movie that deserves a sequel the MOST, by the simple fact that it's a superhero movie, which are automatically bred for continuing stories!

Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.

No need to attack anyone for their opinion.

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?

Finding Nemo did not need a sequel, and when it was announced, I was like..... what the hell? But with something that did not need to exist, Finding Dory did exceed my expectations (which wasn't much). The only way they could have done a sequel is if it involved Dory being the protagonist, and they created something great. It's in the middle quality-wise of the Pixar sequels.

What always bothered me is that people complain about it being formulaic (which it is), but act like the Toy Story sequels were not formulaic. It's kind of ironic how the one sequel that's in development (and will not fit in the formula) is being crucified.

I'm excited for The Incredibles 2, but not as excited as Toy Story 4 and Cars 3. It probably has to do with the fact that we have no information on the sequel as of right now. I wonder if Jackson is one of the last people to record lines for the film.

Interesting that people aren't as mad with the WDAS sequels.

I have A LOT to say about a LOT of things, and NO little minded opinions will hold MY opinion back.

WDAS?

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?

Walt Disney Animation Studios.

ehhhhhhhh

Honestly, I feel like that's exactly why people want more movies out of the franchise, which seems like a really shallow reason to me.

(And for the record, I don't think Frozen needed a sequel either, but I also thought the movie was just okay.)

edited 16th Dec '16 6:05:50 PM by Odd1

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

Walt Disney Animation Studios (the folks behind the Disney Animated Canon).

edited 16th Dec '16 6:08:58 PM by Spinosegnosaurus77

Peace is the only battle worth waging.

Frozen is overrated as hell, but god damn it I will defend Let It Go to my death.

For the record, I think Moana is kinda overrated too, but it's better than Frozen. It at least has The Rock.

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?

Oh God, no, "Let it Go" is trite as fuck, and I even felt that way when I saw it in theatres. "Take a melody / Simple as can be / Give it some words and / Sweet harmony," as they say, and the melody certainly was simple as can be, with a chord progression overused as hell. The only things I'll praise about the song is that it's bombastic as hell and fun to sing, and the lyrics are fantastic, but aside from that, it's VERY clearly just an attempt at aping "Defying Gravity"'s success. And, for what it's worth, it worked for them and paid off tenfold, so hey.

EDIT: also the bridge is kinda neat, but it doesn't elevate the song to much more than "okay, competently composed" to me

edited 16th Dec '16 6:17:16 PM by Odd1

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.