Weekend Thread | Weekend Estimates - FD: $136.2M, CI: $34.5M, TC2: $15.56M, NYSM2: $9.65M, Flopcraft: $6.52M

[AniNate]

I could imagine PG-13 scenarios for those films but I highly doubt Pixar would do any of them if they could do G/PG instead 

Edited June 19, 2016 by tribefan695

[cannastop]

1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:

Why? Let's face it, none of those 4 are really kids films anyways and already skew heavily teen/adult. I've yet to know a kid that loves Wall-E or Ratatouille. Incredibles has a lot of kid appeal but also a lot of scenes and themes that push it for a PG kids film. The sequel could easily go in a PG-13 direction. Inside Out also has kid appeal, but in that case the sequel has to be PG-13 to explore the puberty topic with any realism. 

There's the issue of continuity. Wouldn't it be confusing to the general audience if Bob Parr became a potty mouth in The Incredibles II just because you want to step it up with the edge?

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

Are we seriously arguing about Pixar movies being PG-13?

[MovieMan89]

Bird really should make a pg-13 animated film that is intended for adult audiences though, with or without Pixar. He's dabbled in more mature animated films from the get go. 

[cannastop]

1 minute ago, Jayhawk said:

Are we seriously arguing about Pixar movies being PG-13?

What do you have against debating batshit hypotheticals? Do you want this place to be boring?

[Ethan Hunt]

4 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Why? Let's face it, none of those 4 are really kids films anyways and already skew heavily teen/adult. I've yet to know a kid that loves Wall-E or Ratatouille. Incredibles has a lot of kid appeal but also a lot of scenes and themes that push it for a PG kids film. The sequel could easily go in a PG-13 direction. Inside Out also has kid appeal, but in that case the sequel has to be PG-13 to explore the puberty topic with any realism. 

I'm not saying they couldn't be pg-13 but with the exception of maybe Inside Out I don't think really see the benefit. Pixar  has been handling all kinds of mature content with in the G and PG rating for well since they've been around. I don't think there is actually much benefit of “edging it up a bit" I don't think it would have any kind of major positive impact on the quality of their movies

[MovieMan89]

Ghibli has several PG-13 films and Pixar has always been their American counterpart. I fail to see what is so crazy about PG-13 Pixar films. It would be an extremely natural fit for the company to do, Disney's brand name is the only problem. 

[AniNate]

There's no reason to intentionally limit your audience if you don't have to.  Inside Out is the only movie I think would absolutely call for a more mature rating were a sequel to be considered. 

[MovieMan89]

6 minutes ago, cannastop said:

There's the issue of continuity. Wouldn't it be confusing to the general audience if Bob Parr became a potty mouth in The Incredibles II just because you want to step it up with the edge?

I guess you've never seen mature animated movies that aren't raunchy shock value ones, since you clearly don't understand what I mean. 

[AniNate]

1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:

Ghibli has several PG-13 films and Pixar has always been their American counterpart. I fail to see what is so crazy about PG-13 Pixar films. It would be an extremely natural fit for the company to do, Disney's brand name is the only problem. 

 

It's not "crazy",  I just don't think it's something they need to do.  If they were to announce such a production my interest would be extremely piqued, but it's not something I expect from them. 

[Mango]

$45-47M? Definitely looking to follow TS3. (Flat day business into Saturday, probably a low-teens drop on Sunday).

 

Should come close to $140 million for the weekend. 

[Ethan Hunt]

2 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Ghibli has several PG-13 films and Pixar has always been their American counterpart. I fail to see what is so crazy about PG-13 Pixar films. It would be an extremely natural fit for the company to do, Disney's brand name is the only problem. 

But why does Pixar have to do just cause Ghibli did it. The rating system hasn't limited their potential to make incredible movies with profound things to say to this point

 

[MovieMan89]

1 minute ago, Ethan Hunt said:

But why does Pixar have to do just cause Ghibli did it. The rating system hasn't limited their potential to make incredible movies with profound things to say to this point

 

They don't have to, I'm just saying there are some interesting routes they could take if they did go there and it wouldn't feel unnatural given how almost half of their work skews older as it is. 

[cannastop]

2 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

I guess you've never seen mature animated movies that aren't raunchy shock value ones, since you clearly don't understand what I mean. 

Well, I've seen Akira and Princess Mononoke. What I'm saying is that it would alienate the general audience if The Incredibles sequel has violence like those two movies did. Maybe if Pixar did an original movie that was PG-13, it might be palatable.

[angeldelmito]

8 minutes ago, cannastop said:

There's the issue of continuity. Wouldn't it be confusing to the general audience if Bob Parr became a potty mouth in The Incredibles II just because you want to step it up with the edge?

Incredibles 2 can easily become PG-13 without having all the language. Just amp up the stakes by making the villain much more "evil". Put some extra danger in the film and there you go. 

 

Actually, if you think about it, the first Incredibles was pretty dark for a PG film on its own. It wouldn't take much effort to tip the scales a bit.

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

10 minutes ago, cannastop said:

What do you have against debating batshit hypotheticals? Do you want this place to be boring?

I mean if we are debating batshit hypotheticals, we should debate Pixar movies as R-rated 

[Yandereprime101189]

1 hour ago, Ethan Hunt said:

 

Hell

 

Spoiler

I liked it better than Zootopia 

 

[cannastop]

4 minutes ago, angeldelmito said:

Incredibles 2 can easily become PG-13 without having all the language. Just amp up the stakes by making the villain much more "evil". Put some extra danger in the film and there you go. 

 

Actually, if you think about it, the first Incredibles was pretty dark for a PG film on its own. It wouldn't take much effort to tip the scales a bit.

I have a hard time believing any Pixar movie would get a PG-13 without someone getting shot on screen or someone saying "shit".

[Ethan Hunt]

1 minute ago, Yandereprime101189 said:

 

Hell

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I liked it better than Zootopia 

 

Are you implying that Zootopia is better than Finding Nemo?

[AniNate]

I've had ideas about Pixar starting an adult label.  Maybe call it "PixarLUX" with the logo being Luxo Sr. just coolly striding towards a gap already prepared between the P and first X,  then shining his light