Disney/Pixar In General

Likely. I can't imagine that cats are that unpopular compared to dalmations.

The Arisicats is just a weaker film than 101 Dalmatians.

Sure, but the big strength of it are the characters which are actually more interesting. Well, outside of the villain, that one is weak in Aristocats. But otherwise, I would rather spend time with those characters.

Pretty much the opposite problem of 101 Dalmatians, funny enough.

So you're saying that the ideal film between the two would be the Aristocats with Cruella de Ville as the antagonist?

In a way...yes.

Heck, you could still have the butler guy to replace her two bumbling sidekicks. He's basically the same character.

Edgar working under Cruella would be interesting.

The Aristocats merchandise is actually HUGE in Japan. Marie even has her own manga series!

Makes sense. They love derr cats.

Something I just thought of:

The first Disney movie to have a PG rating was The Black Hole. The first Disney animated movie to have a PG rating was The Black Cauldron. The first PG-13 movie Disney released under its own name (as opposed to an imprint) was Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

If and/or when Disney releases an R-rated movie under its own name (or, alternatively, a PG-13 animated movie), I predict that movie will have the word "black" in its title. THE PROPHECY WILL BE FULFILLED!

Edited by ElSquibbonator on Aug 31st 2018 at 6:19:35 AM

So you'd be up for an R-Rated Black Panther sequel? (EDIT: Oh, you said under their own name, well, why not go full circle and make an R-Rated remake of The Black Hole?)

Edited by J79 on Aug 31st 2018 at 7:01:49 AM

Disney will never release a R-rated movie under the Disney brand. They will brand it as something else. The closest we might come is an R rated movie under the Marvel studio banner. Maybe. I wouldn't be surprised if the next Deadpool will be released as a Fox movie, too.

Disney has released R-rated movies under the "Touchstone Pictures" brand IIRC. Touchstone Pictures has been Disney's "disguise brand" for whenever it wants to release movies it doesn't want associated with Disney itself. This includes movies that are aimed at a higher age demographic than usual (such as R-rated movies) and movies that it doesn't have a lot of faith in (The Nightmare Before Christmas was one such movie, though they're quite comfortable associating it with their Disney brand now that it's succeeded).

This is basically the same reason why "pigeonholed" authors sometimes use aliases when releasing works outside of their genre mainstays.

And even when they were releasing R-rated films under the Touchstone brand in the 80s they were still criticized for it.

What about a PG-13 animated movie? They seem fine with PG-13 ratings, at least, within certain series, and the last few years have seen a small but noticeable uptick in successful "adult" animated movies in US theaters (Sausage Party, Loving Vincent, and Isle of Dogs, to name three).

Maybe not in the immediate future, but sometime in the next decade or so?

Edited by ElSquibbonator on Sep 1st 2018 at 6:00:22 AM

Not for a Disney Animation Studio or Pixar production. It might happen, but it won't be their goal. Those movies are just too expensive to lose the family crowd.

But in an independent project? Sure. I still think that Don Bluth talking to Disney might be about the movie he wants to make, which would certainly end up being PG-13.

Well, keep in mind that a lot of PG-13 movies (the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the Harry Potter films, the Star Wars sequel trilogy) are often thought of as "family" movies in this day and age. The Marvel movies are rated PG-13, and can be extremely dark, but they are heavily marketed towards children. Same with the Harry Potter movies. And millions of parents took their kids to Star Wars: The Force Awakens, even though it contained a graphic scene of death-by-lightsaber-impalement. Why should a hypothetical PG-13 Pixar movie be any different?

Edited by ElSquibbonator on Sep 1st 2018 at 8:29:31 AM

Assuming that Disney will keep Blue Sky Studios after the Fox Entertainment purchase is done, that (a PG-13 Disney-produced animated film) is where that studio might come in. Blue Sky makes animated movies for a far cheaper price (think $80-115 million) than either WDAS or Pixar.

Edited by Buzzinator on Sep 1st 2018 at 10:31:49 AM

Now that you mention it, Blue Sky had some interesting films in its pipeline that weren't Ice Age and Rio sequels. The animated film adaptation of NIMONA sounds especially cool. They were also working on an action/adventure movie called Anubis a while back, and while I don't know if it's still being developed it definitely seems like the sort of animate movie we need more of. If Disney is ever going to move outside its current "comfort zone" with animated movies, this might be their ticket.

I can picture Disney treating Blue Sky as a separate animation unit (kind of like what their relationship with Pixar is like now) dedicated to more low-budget, "experimental" features that WDFA itself wouldn't make. Early on, of course, these wouldn't be too risky, just a little "weirder" than normal Disney movies. Once the public is used to that—which could take a good decade or so— they could expand their horizons even further. And then, maybe 15 or 20 years from now, we'll get our PG-13 animated Disney movie.

Edited by ElSquibbonator on Sep 1st 2018 at 11:32:30 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if Disney sells Blue Sky off. There are a few entities which might be interested in owning their own animated studio. And the Fox deal will cost Disney so much, they might want that money.

But then who would buy it? Warner Bros. already has the Warner Animation Group, Universal has both Dreamworks and Illumination, Sony Pictures has its eponymous animation studio, and Paramount has an animation studio too. In other words, all of the other major studios have their own animation divisions now. I think it would be prudent for Disney to keep Blue Sky around, and use it as a production house for more experimental and offbeat animated movies that they couldn't produce under their main studio or Pixar.

Edited by ElSquibbonator on Sep 2nd 2018 at 9:54:21 AM

Blue Skies could fill the niche that Dream Works left; an independent animation studio. Although that would require a massive increase in quality from them, something I don't doubt they can do, but might be harder for them to do consistently.

Paramount’s animation studio isn’t doing too hot, so I can see them buying Blue Sky to supplement their portfolio.

I agree Paramount could need a better animation arm.