A couple weeks ago, in a post from the Animation Guild Blog, veteran Disney animator Floyd Norman made mention that: “Oh, and ‘Newt’ is dead.”
“Newt” was scheduled to be Disney/Pixar’s big summer 2012 film and the directorial debut of visionary sound designer Gary Rydstrom (“Star Wars,” “Terminator 2,” “Minority Report,” “WALL*E”). Its plot centered around two endangered blue-footed newts. The male newt (named Newt) is trying to woo the female newt (named Brooke) through the use of an instructional chart that’s plastered on the wall (they’re in a community college science lab), but the last step of the process is obscured by a coffee pot, so Newt never knows how to, you know, seal the deal and save his species.
All in all it sounded like a charming, offbeat little romantic comedy, something like an animated Woody Allen movie; basically, the kind that Pixar could have elevated to something really special and fun.
But apparently, that’s not the case anymore.
While Floyd Norman refused to go into further details, citing solidarity with his northern California brothers, speculation has already run rampant as to what could replace “Newt” in that choice summer 2012 slot, that will most likely also be home to “The Avengers,” “Star Trek 2,” “Battleship,” “Madagascar 3” and the new “Spider-Man” film.
Common wisdom would have “The Bear and the Bow,” Disney/Pixar’s Viking movie that was written and directed by Brenda Chapman and originally slated for Christmas 2011, as the replacement. However, considering that, despite favorable reviews, both high profile Disney animated releases “The Princess and the Frog” and “Christmas Carol,” didn’t exactly topple the box office when released this past winter, pausing the release of “The Bear and the Bow” seems even more likely.
Of course, there are those that are jumping to the conclusion that Disney/Pixar will somehow have a proposed (but not officially announced) “Monsters, Inc.” sequel ready to go by then. But even if they were working on it, they wouldn’t be able to crank it out that quickly.
Other speculation has been pointed in the direction of some mysterious pre-production artwork on a short film (or feature) that has a young boy interacting with a long-necked dinosaur. This was first spotted on the special features of “Up” and now people are saying (on sites like the Pixar Blog) that it’s from a forthcoming short film called “Night and Day,” most likely attached to “Toy Story 3,” directed by longtime Pixar character designer Teddy Newton and featuring music from Michael Giacchino.
While Floyd Norman is an industry vet who knows his shit (and we’re right to believe him), there’s been some other, unfounded Pixar rumor mongering going on at the amateurish website Screenhead, which reports that director Brad Lewis has been removed from “Cars 2” and been replaced by original “Cars” director (and current overseer of virtually all things Disney and Pixar) John Lasseter.
We call bullshit on this one.
While the “Cars 2” concept seems fairly creatively bankrupt and Brad Lewis, the first film’s producer, stepping in doesn’t put a whole lot of excitement in our tanks, it does make sense. Lewis is good at managing people and he can bring in the film on time and on budget so that Disney can sell a whole lot of “Cars 2” related merchandise, which is the reason “Cars” was greenlit in the first place.
Lasseter, on the other hand, is incredibly busy. Like we said, he basically runs the creative side of Disney right now, everything from traditional animation like “Princess and the Frog” to theme park rides, like the massive, multi-billion dollar reconstruction of Anaheim’s Disney’s California Adventure Park. To think that he has time to direct a new film seems positively laughable. He may be taking a more active role in its development, but homeboy just doesn’t have the time.
you can thank lassetter for the demise of "NEWT". it was along the same ground Chris Sanders' "American Dog" (now the HORRID "Bolt").
funny to think the same happened to him with "The Little Toaster"; twenty years later he's doing the same.
It is sad to see Pixar's trajectory. Everyone at Pixar swore when they were bought/satanically digested by Disney that they would never be a sequels-dependent company, that they would continue to take chances. I realize it's family fare here, but I might be the only human on Earth who found Up! to be cloying, simplistic, structurally uninteresting…
To be fair, "American Dog" was a mess and Sanders did himself no favors by his stubborn refusal to try to compromise.
And yes, Up is fantastic and I strongly disagree with your opinion. When the theme of the movie is about regret and the acceptance of death and loss, I'm sorry, it's going to get cloying and sappy.
Also, there's nothing wrong with a movie adhering to basic story structure when the story itself has so many fantastical elements – it makes it more palatable to audiences.
NEWT is dead simply because they never cracked the story. Simple as that. Also, Cars sells billions in merchandise. In the end, Pixar still needs to make a profit, so if a successful sequel means the creative freedom that spawned riskier, less-commercial projects like Wall-E, Ratatouille and Up (which was famously predicted by Disney execs to be the studio's lowest grossing movie) then I say make a Cars 2 and 3 if need be.
"It's sad to see Pixar's trajectory"? Dude, your head must have scaled new heights in its climb up your ass. Pixar has the single greatest track record for quality in modern cinema today. If your blind or ignorant to that fact then you're a moron.
"And yes, Up is fantastic and I strongly disagree with your opinion. When the theme of the movie is about regret and the acceptance of death and loss, I'm sorry, it's going to get cloying and sappy."
But it's possible to tackle such themes in a way that ISN'T cloying and sappy.
I too thought Up was simplistic and uninteresting.
Cde, I'm sure you could, but how successfully is another question. An angle or take that worked for one movie may not necessarily work for another.
When the movie is about a sentimental character being, well, sentimental, I think it's hard to strike the balance between getting too sappy and being too cold and distancing. I think the filmmakers did a splendid job finding a balance but apparently you didn't.
Also, being sappy and being simplistic are two different set of nitpicks. Personally, I'm fine with the story being simplistic (and I obviously found it interesting) because sometimes theme can trump plot. The plot was significantly toned down (something about a fountain of youth and such) in order to not detract that the movie is, ultimately, about a character dealing with grief and loss and finding new meaning in life. A wildly diverting storyline or complex plotting would only serve to undermine the simplistic beauty (IMO) of this.
But, of course, everyone's mileage will very.
Is what fantasy land is Ratatouille–a project where the original director fired because of his not-easily-made-into-baby-toys vision–a "riskier, less-commercial" project? That's day job spin control.
"American Dog" was a mess only if you define mess as "not having a Pixar beat sheet." There's a difference between compromising and turning your film into something as artistically daring as The Hottie & The Nottie.
"Is what fantasy land is Ratatouille–a project where the original director fired because of his not-easily-made-into-baby-toys vision–a "riskier, less-commercial" project? That's day job spin control."
Dude, get over yourself. Pixar makes family films, they're not going to produce something akin to "Anti-Christ" anytime soon. And yes, it was a riskier project than something like "Cars" whose commercial and toy appeal can be seen by even Stevie fuckin' Wonder.
And Brad Bird's take on the film certainly isn't the most merchandise-friendly either. The only difference between him and the film's original director is that he knows how to tell a fucking story.
Okay – make a family film. Or make a film for young people. How young do you have to be to NOT be allowed to see an American animated film that isn't 'heartwarming' – an epic American cgi fable on the level of Princess Mononoke' or 'Nausicaa'? I really expected Pixar (Disney-free at one time) to at least have attempted a film at that level of sophistication by now – or even something trippy, like 'The Dark Crystal'. When I was a kid, I LIKED scary scenes, it made the comedy that much better. Young movies today play it safe, period, even Disney/Pixar.
I just wanted to say, after reading all the comments, and as a dad of three kids, there is something wonderful about a film studio that you can trust won't terrify your kids. My oldest loves being scared. My middle one gets nightmares. But both of them love the Pixar films. It's just nice to be able to trust. Pixar is a family-friendly studio. Can we just have one of those for keeps? Does artistic integrity always mean making something scary? Or edgy? Just a thought.
very good article. I would like to receive much more information about this topic
Newt Past Away. R.I.P. Disney Pixar's Newt 2009-2010. We Will Miss Newt And Brooke.
R.I.P. Disney Pixar Newt 2008-2010
pixar is spectacular, there is a movie that I have not seen, along with Disney are the best that exists in children's films!
my son almost crying watching laprimera part of "cars" can not imagine what will happen if they take in the film the second part, for sure my son will go crazy!
I was the first Pixar film "Cars," the story is very cute, and like all children's films, has a very positive message
It's sad that so many people think that Pixar shouldn't make sequels. If they are of top quality, then why not? It's fun to revisit these charaters. And, with Toy Story 3 on it's way to $400 million domestic, people obviously are happy with it. If a story is good, it doesn't matter if the characters are familiar.
Regarding Newt, if Pixar thinks it should be shelved, then I trust them. However, I wouldn't be shocked if they took another go at it and fixed it enough to make the movie down the road.
I say keep the focus on the storytelling, and bring on Cars 2, Brave, and Monsters Inc 2. And if you sell $$ billions in toys, good for you – it's clearly making kids happy.