10 billion dollars and counting.
That is the staggering (and continuously escalating) amount of merchandising revenue generated by Pixar’s 2006 film Cars, which lead to the development and release of Cars 2 in 2011, only the second sequel in the illustrious Emeryville-based animation hub’s filmography. Later that year a prequel to Monsters Inc. was formally announced, followed a year later by a direct spinoff to crowd favorite Finding Nemo. This pattern signifies how one of the film industry’s premier creative storytelling mainstays is slowly being relegated to the role of sequel / spin-off factory, creating cinematic works devoid of originality and necessity, dictated primarily by merchandise revenue.
Other than the lucrative merchandising potential, there was never a truly legitimate reason to warrant Cars 2. Same with Monsters University, which I admittedly enjoyed, despite it being one of the most unnecessary spin-offs ever. When I first heard the news that Pixar formally announced Finding Dory, I seriously was hoping it was a joke. Finding Nemo, aside from being a crowd favorite, is a great film that deserves to stand on its own. I have no problem with the Toy Story trilogy because I honestly believe there were more stories to be told with those characters. Additionally, all three of those films were stellar.
Let me make something abundantly clear: Hollywood loves churning out sequels/ spin-offs and tends to create films with merchandising in mind. Additionally, I’m not scolding Pixar for creating some of the most popular characters in recent cinema, and am well aware Toy Story consumer products have grossed an obscene amount as well. But for the longest time, Pixar seemingly attempted to create something unique and new with each film. Yes, there were often plentiful merchandising opportunities inherent within their respective projects, but they never created something solely with that aspect in mind.
Case and point, here’s three examples of highly acclaimed Pixar films that feature premises and characters that don’t fit within the traditional mold of lucrative merchandising potential.
1. Ratatouille
Their animation Ratatouille focuses on the gastronomical and culinary adventures of a rat, and to make matters worse, a rat in a kitchen, one of the most universally recognized signs of uncleanliness. While the human characters were memorable enough, I have to yet to see little children running around with Linguini and Anton Ego dolls.
2. Wall-E
Wall-E, Pixar’s most daring and experimental cinematic foray, contains no dialogue for the first 30 minutes and explores the many facets of an intergalactic love story between two robots. Plus, it depicts the human race as a bunch of individuals whose complete reliance on technology has rendered them overweight and lazy.
3. Up
Up is Pixar’s most poignant and emotional work, starring an 80-year old man and a young boy scout who end up floating away to South America in a house lifted by thousands of balloons. If you’re not sure why it’s unorthodox, please re-read the prior sentence.
These unconventional central characters and inventive plots indicated how Pixar was dedicated to truly creating something new and unique. Now I fear those days of innovation are over.
Perhaps this sequel/spin-off trend is simply temporary for Pixar. It doesn’t help that its parent company, The Walt Disney Company, is notorious for producing unnecessary content and for milking its franchises to the point of exhaustion. They’re releasing Cars spin-off Planes, one of the most blatant and borderline insulting cash grabs ever, in less than a month, and have already approved the development of a sequel entitled Planes: Fire and Rescue. This might continue until Disney runs out of inanimate objects to fashion with a pair of eyes and functioning mouth.
Ultimately, I love Pixar, I’m just afraid their days of true innovation are over. In the past, what has set them apart from their competition is their dedication to pushing boundaries on both the storytelling and animation fronts, while crafting an accessible work of substance. With the release of these unwarranted sequels/ prequels/ spin-offs, I’m afraid the gap has closed slightly. It doesn’t help that Brave wasn’t up to their usual standards either, despite its strong emphasis on mother-daughter relationships and fantastical storyline.
Pixar contains the premier animation and storytelling minds in the industry, and I hate to see them go to waste crafting unnecessary films whose only legitimate explanation for existing is for their characters to be plastered onto a lunchbox.
–Written by Trevor Gould. He has a LinkedIn, Twitter, and Website.
Gray Areas 
I’m hoping that Pixar will snap out of this funk soon, especially considering the dud that their last standalone film was.
Call me naively hopeful, but I think that Finding Dory could be a genuinely good film. Let’s face it, Dory was everyone’s favorite Finding Nemo character, and given her circumstances, there is a lot that we don’t know about her. If placed in competent hands, Finding Dory could bring that special quality back to Pixar films.
Maybe the sequels are coming out because they have so many iconic characters they want to revisit? And it can take years for a brand new film to get off the ground, so maybe the sequels just keep them doing something in between. Plus, well, next year they have The Good Dinosaur coming out, so they’re not at the point of doing JUST sequels yet.
I completely appreciate your point about sequels. The savings grace of Pixar is that I haven’t seen a movie of theirs that I disliked…ever. So if they’re making sequels that are better than “The Lone Ranger,” I can handle their cash-grabbingness.
I have to agree with Dave here. I’ll take a “bad” Pixar movie any day over a “good” (but awful) standard Hollywood offering. While PIxar has plenty of merchandising clout, how much of that money is actually seen by the employees? Not much is my uneducated guess. If Pixar needs to do sequels to remain viable, have at, I say.
To answer the question posed in your headline, yes. The answer is yes.