It's a departure, certainly, but I, for one, am pretty excited.

Hopefully it won't be plagued by deceptive expectations...

Wow. Dang. Amazed Beyond all reason.

You know, this film actually sounds VERY smart. It's a good thing that many kids will be watching this films, kids that could actually be inspired and decide to change earth's fate.

But whoa. I'm flabbergasted! Andrew's film seems to have gone up and beyond a regular film. It has an actual message giving to today's society. whoa.

This film seems to be one I will love. especially since andrew's making it, he's a pretty awesome director. I can't wait for this film. And definitely trust this man to make it heck of an amazing picture.

Sounds like one big bore to me. I'll give it a chance, but I'm not one of those fanboys who thinks everything Pixar does is golden. Quite frankly, everything from the logo, to the image we saw the other day to this description sounds quite boring.

Sounds kinda like Pixar is going for an "E.T." meets "A.I." kinda thing.  I hope it's good.  Let's just hope it's not a preachy movie, I want it to be an entertaining movie, not one that belittles the audience.  I wonder if Jim means Fred will be "in" the movie as in filmed footage or  cgi version of him will be in the movie.

I'm not a big fan of Pixar, I think some of their work is great but other projects (if not most) are way overhyped. But I have to admit, this sounds pretty good. I'm glad Pixar is taking a departure.

Sounds cool... Sort of Lilo&Stitch meets Idiocracy possibly. Hope it's cool. I'm all jazzed up for Robinsons now. :D

...wow. Sounds like an epic, I must say! I'm looking forward to it. Hopefully audiences will embrace this film, even though its still in the works.

Bold choice... kudos to Pixar for avoiding the "wise-cracking-jive-talking-farting-cuddly-critters-who-learn-the-true-meaning-of-family" rut that animation now seems trapped in.  Light-hearted CG Kubrick is what this seems like... should be VERY interesting...

Ha ha ha!  GA Mike, stop!  You're killing me!!  It's one big bore 'cause it's Pixar!  Ha ha ha!!

AH ha ha ha ha!  Sto- hop it!  You're too much!

It sounds really different. And I was hoping for Pixar to do something totally different with their future films, 'cause I thought the original spirit was a little gone there. But the epic, adventurous, and original taste to "Wall-E" gives me good spirit!

I don't think mainstream audiences will embrace the movie, but it sure as hell will be a classic.

Live human performers in a cgi film? Heavy political messages? This is reminding me of the last third of Happy Feet. Could pixar possibly be trying to outdo them? Could this have something to do with Cars losing to Happy Feet at the Oscars? Just some thoughts...

"(with the help of his pet cockroach, Spot)" - I love it!  

"we're all now just these enormous fat blobs who can only move about because we travel in huge floating lounge chairs." - that just made me laugh!

"And this will be the very first time that a really-for-real human performer will appear in a Pixar production."- wow...that's pretty cool.

This sounds like an AMAZING movie!  So much heart.  I'm so excited for this now!

askmike1 said:

"but I'm not one of those fanboys who thinks everything Pixar does is golden." I'm not, well, a fangirl of Pixar...especially since Disney bought them and they've been running the show.  But this sounds like a great movie, period.

And, fravit, although I wouldn't touch "Happy Feet" with a long pole, and therefore haven't seen it, the Oscars *just* happened, and I'm sure this plot was thought of before the Oscars.  Which *just* happened.  

Hmmm.... The last science fiction movie that opened with 30 minutes of no-dialogue action did alright. It's been 40 years, so why not give it another try? If this one is 1/3 as good, I'll be thrilled with it!

This sounds fantastic. As a fan of sci-fi and Pixar, I am eagerly anticipating this one. Early naysayers be (as I'm sure our friend WALL E would say) beeped.

Eh ... I kinad of agree with AskMike on this one ... sounds kinda stupid to me. I'm not really one for films with an overly preachy message and this one sounds like it fits that bill ...

Then again, I'm not really that big a fan of hokey sci-fi crap either.

This may be the first Pixar film that I truly have no interest in seeing.

>Could this have something to do with Cars losing to Happy Feet at the Oscars?

Yes. This whole story was crafted and animated in the past twelve hours, just after Cars' shocking loss.

>it sure as hell will be a classic.

I'm all for Pixar trying something different, but it might be a bit premature to declare something like that after reading three paragraphs of Jim's plot summary.

WALL E looks so cute! I am charmed.

Sounds like it's going to be pretty different, but neat. I like the "giant floating blobs on armchairs" idea, and that poor WALL E is still trying to clean up the Earth all by himself.

He's just so cute!

"wise-cracking-jive-talking-farting-cuddly-critters-who-learn-the-true-meaning-of-family"

Who says their won't be? Jim only gave us the first third of the movie. And he did say "WALL E runs into some even more mis-begotten creatures." Who's to say one of those creatures won't be a wise-cracking-jive-talking-farting-cuddly-critter? Plus, the entire plot sounds like Wall-E is looking for a family.

"Ha ha ha!  GA Mike, stop!  You're killing me!!  It's one big bore 'cause it's Pixar!  Ha ha ha!!"

It's not one big bore because it's Pixar, it's one big bore because it sounds like one big bore. I'm not a Pixar basher, I loved TS1/2 and Monsters Inc (and I liked most of the others). Pixar has the ability to make a good story, this just doesn't sound like one to me.

"Live human performers in a cgi film? Heavy political messages? This is reminding me of the last third of Happy Feet. "

Exactly what I was thinking.

"EEwwww ick  it's different !" they exclaimed. "We don't want anything new, different, or uncomfortable, and we don't want any sequels either."

If I'm a suit, here's the pitch I need to hear from Pixar: "we wanna make a movie about..."  That's it. When your "disappointing" movies rake in $$$ by the truckload, and introduce exploitable new characters, you can pretty much write your own ticket. For a little synergy, Disney Co has just signed up Robert Zemeckis, somebody else who has made a career out of successful movies that don't fit into a standard synopsis box. He just might be asked to consult if the patient's vital signs drop.

Going into it, I didn't want to see a movie about insects, talking fish, or a family of superheroes either, but Pixar consistently puts out entertaining movies. That Nemo is pretty preachy too. It's basically an hour and a half of "you should listen to your father." So I'll be there with my super tub of toxic butter-flavored popcorn just waiting for the robots to deliver their sermon. If I don't have to battle you for the armrest, I can live with that.

OMG! This sounds freaking amazing! So daring, original, exciting... Officially my most anticipated movie of next year!

Wow, the ignorance by some on this board amazes me.  I suppose you people want Pixar to just keep making the same safe family entertainment forever?

This is the right time for them to be expanding their scope and Stanton seems like he is interested in actually becoming a real filmmaker….but within animation.  The art of animation needs to be taken to the next step, and this sounds like it’s a step in the right direction.

My big hope for this picture is the theme (which is not to be confused with a “message”).  The theme and ideas contained in this story could be really big and bold, and I just hope that they retain their complexity all the way through.  This movie may get me excited about animation again!

Falfa31 said:

"Wow, the ignorance by some on this board amazes me.  I suppose you people want Pixar to just keep making the same safe family entertainment forever?"

Actually ... yes. I do. Seems to have worked for a company named "Disney" for a long time, hasn't it??

Edgy, preachy crap like this isn't something I want to see from Pixar. If I want that, I'll go see a "grown-up film."

When I go to see a Pixar film I expect safe, family entertainment ... talking fish, talking cars, and some cute, fuzzy monsters.

Fat humans hovering in their lounge chairs above a planet they destroyed?? Yeah ... that's really an uplifting, entertaining film I want to take my kids to. Sounds more like a Quentin Tarantino movie than a Pixar one!

But then again, I guess I'm just one of the ignorant, unwashed masses that frequent this board ... I'm obviously not as sophisticated and hip as you are.

WDWacky:

“Actually ... yes. I do. Seems to have worked for a company named "Disney" for a long time, hasn't it??”

Oh, you’re a clever one…

Wall -E is trying to do something different.  A story with little dialogue, a foreign environment, an epic scope, big ideas, a theme (hopefully) with some complexity, etc.  Andrew Stanton and his co-artists are obviously trying to push the animated feature forward.  You know who else tried to do that?  Walt Disney.

Ever hear of a little masterpiece called Fantasia?  Yep, that was Disney being bold, new, original, and trying to push the animated feature forward… but I’m sure you would dismiss it as being “boring and uninteresting” as well.  Thanks to people like you (and non-existent profits from Europe) the film failed to make money, and Disney was stuck repeating himself for the rest of his life.  

The stagnate Walt Disney Company is not something that I would look to as a model for artistic or financial success.   They are simply doing the same thing over and over, and everyone else has in turn followed their path, making the same kinds of movies for decades!  Because no one else has ever attempted anything different, the young people of today don’t know that new ideas are possible and therefore, no one tries anymore.

But, WDWacky, if you just take off your blinders and open your mind up to new possibilities just think…maybe even you will be entertained after all…even in new ways!  Could that possibly be?  Look inside yourself for that thing that probably died along time ago…that thing called imagination…and imagine how fun and interesting WALL-E just might be next year.  

You might be getting a TAD carried away over an animated feature, however, I can pretty much tell from the tone of your posts that you most likely don't have a lot of friends, so I guess you gotta have something right?

Here's the way I could look at it ... you could make a movie that was nothing but scenes of cows eating grass and I'm quite certain some "artiste" somewhere would hail it as a work of genius.

Me? I'd call it what it is ... crap. And, more importantly, crap that no one would pay to see.

You can't possible compare my feelings about this film (i.e. that it looks like it will suck) with the fact that Fantasia (which happens to be my single favorite Disney animated feature of all time) didn't do well at the box office.

Here's what I think about this film ... and it has NOTHING to do with it being new or different or whatever ... I think it sounds like preachy film with a "message" that I have no interest in seeing. That's it. There's nothing more or less to it ...

And the thing is ... you don't know me from Adam ... you have no idea what I like or don't like and, quite frankly, I find you to be an irritating, judgemental, blowhard. Which is pretty much par for the course as far as most people who sit on faux-intellectual high horses go.

I happen to have an EXTREMELY varied taste in films, however, my tastes do not range into the area of films that suck.

AskMike, you'll forgive me if I disagree with you, but you always post a negative, anti-Pixar (usually anti-Lasseter) comment in Pixar/Lasseter threads.  It's fine if you don't like Pixar, but I just think it's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.  

I would personally say that Pixar's output has been amazing, with Cars the least compelling of their films still standing out as the most creative and entertaining of a year crammed with other animated features- some having come from or having been distributed by Disney Features.  I'd say that in the time Pixar has existed, Disney has withered and become irrelevant, while Pixar became the tail that wagged the dog.

I'm not a knee-jerk Pixar supporter, either.  I'm not there, nor do I work for DFA, but as a fan of animation and a film goer, I'd just have to say that it's been a looooong time since a Disney feature has broken the formula and been involving FOR ME PERSONALLY.  The fact that Cars had the most formulaic, Disney-like storyline Pixar's ever produced shows that that formula doesn't really work anymore.  If it had had a more original storyline, the abstract world of cars living as men would have been more palatable to a wider audience.

See?  I can love Pixar and be a little critical when I feel like it.  I'd just like to see a little less spittle on the keyboard when you write about Pixar and Lassetter.  It will make me less likely to dismiss your comments and more likely to be swayed by your arguments.

Not that you should necessarily care what I, a total stranger, think about your comments.  We're just having a conversation here.

WDWacky:

“You might be getting a TAD carried away over an animated feature, however, I can pretty much tell from the tone of your posts that you most likely don't have a lot of friends, so I guess you gotta have something right?”

I guess I was correct in calling you ignorant in the first place.  I’ll relay your thoughtful study on my social life and personality to the dozens of people that I have managed to keep as close personal friends for the majority of my life and to my close knit family and to my girlfriend and we’ll see what they think.

WDWacky:

“Here's the way I could look at it ... you could make a movie that was nothing but scenes of cows eating grass and I'm quite certain some "artiste" somewhere would hail it as a work of genius.”

I think you’re a bit confused.  No-one is hailing WALL-E as a work of genius.  All I am saying is that the story sounds like it has immense potential.  

I think you’ve had your blinders on so long that you don’t realize that not everything that is different from the typical and bland is comparable to a pretentious student film or a piece of “video art”.  This just shows how close-minded you really are.  If you had an “EXTREMELY varied taste in films” you would understand this and be more open to new ideas.  I actually am curious as to what your taste in film is.

WDWacky:

“And the thing is ... you don't know me from Adam ... you have no idea what I like or don't like and, quite frankly, I find you to be an irritating, judgemental, blowhard.”

Yet you are the one making a personal attack on me?  Wow…

Honestly, I’m already tired of this.  You can’t show any maturity in discussing pictures or animation and therefore resort to acting like a fifth grader.  Obviously you won’t take anything I say seriously anyway, so I am done with you and your feeble arguments.  I'll leave you to your simple world of happy bugs, fuzzy monsters, and gas guzzling talking cars…you seem to fit in there.  

A VCR that still works after 700 years!?! Now that is Sci-fi!  It reminds me of Woody Allen's "Sleeper"  when he turns the key on an old VW bug and it starts right up!

That still makes me laugh!  

If anyone can make a film with just beeps and boops it think Pixar can,  I just love

"For the Birds"  the amount of character and emotion in those birds is a work of mastery,  not one word in the whole show.  "Knick-knack" is another great example of the way Pixar animators can weave entertainment, emotion, and story into ordinary things just using pantomime (much like Charlie Chaplin).

In fact, most of Pixar's shorts are probably good indications of how the artists are going to springboard those talents into a very entertaining animated motion picture!

The shorts are a great example, nobody complains that those have no dialogue.  Obviously, a longer version of that is harder to pull off, but going without dialogue isn't inherently a bad thing.

Many of the comments seem simply premature, from the headline's "skillfully" to the complaints of "preachy".  Preachy has implications of tone (usually a character getting the message across with a speech at some point), if the movie turns out to be a hilarious satire that gets the message across with humor (heck, even something like The Office tv show, either version, sends a scathing message about contemporary business without being the tiniest bit preachy) the message will help the movie, not hurt it.

Think the Daily Show's America book, or the satirical side of South Park or Team America (but obviously without the swearing).  Social commentary via satire can be great entertainment, and not preachy at all.

And the requisite Pixar jab - Night at the Museum is now only 2.5 million behind Cars.  There's no question it will bump Cars to number 3 of 2006.

Although I consider myself a big science fiction fan, animation and science fiction have a way of canceling each other out (or it could just be that it's extremely difficult to merge the two) But I'm willing to give Pixar the benefit of the doubt. I AM looking forward to what they do with the CGI John Carter of Mars, which is another departure from strictly kiddie fare. I don't care how much they want to experiment, I doubt that they will totally abandon the types of films that made them famous.

Falfa31 said:

"This just shows how close-minded you really are.  If you had an “EXTREMELY varied taste in films” you would understand this and be more open to new ideas ... Honestly, I’m already tired of this.  You can’t show any maturity in discussing pictures or animation and therefore resort to acting like a fifth grader.  Obviously you won’t take anything I say seriously anyway, so I am done with you and your feeble arguments.  I'll leave you to your simple world of happy bugs, fuzzy monsters, and gas guzzling talking cars…you seem to fit in there. "

Just for the record, let's run down the chronology here ...

1. Jim posts article about storyline of new Pixar film

2. Several people (myself included) post their OPINION that this film's storyline doesn't sound very interesting or like something we'd want to see.

3. You post calling us "ignorant"

4. I call you out for it

5. You get your back up and insinuate that I'm one step removed from a caveman because I think this storyline sucks.

I find it deliciously ironic that you call me "closed minded" when the entire theme of your posts seems to be, "Well if you don't agree with me you must be ignorant."

Can't you just accept that some people have tastes that differ from yours?

On one thing we will agree, however ... this discussion has clearly run its course. We'll agree to disagree and I'll even go as far as saying I may be wrong ... this could be a great film. I've loved every Pixar film to date (including the one about the gas guzzling cars), so I'd actually be surprised if this one turned out to be as bad as it sounds in this sneak preview.

[quote]Fat humans hovering in their lounge chairs above a planet they destroyed?? Yeah ... that's really an uplifting, entertaining film I want to take my kids to. Sounds more like a Quentin Tarantino movie than a Pixar one![/quote]

Your comparison to a Tarantino film is completely wrong.  He does not make movies of this nature.

As for a preachy movie, maybe it will sink in with some of the audience members.  Maybe the film will inspire them to not graffitti up wall ect, or throw thier trash around the nieghborhood. And as a result, maybe you'll inspire a child to respect things such as other people's properties, ect.  And while the setting is far fetched, I think the moral is good, much better and much more real then Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. (While I'm all for doing all we can for the enviornment, it's not neccessarily going to stop global warming like Mr. Gore insists) where as the moral of this story is more of a reflection on, "Things look crappy if you don't take care of them."  Look at LA for example.  Crap Crap Crap.  I hate the city.  Why? Not simply because of the traffic of the area, but mainly because of the residents of the area.  A fair ammount of the city's population just can't respect anything.  There's grafitti all over the walls, trash blowing in the street, and everything looks run down.  But maybe this movie will inspire some of those kids in the LA area, or any similar area of some sort, to stop and think, well maybe I should't do that.

And to display that message with an actual story to is even better.  I personally liked happy feet.  Grant it, it has its message, but who cares?  Maybe it's a message we need to hear.  Why run away from a good idea?

Frankly, this flick sounds like a cross between "Robots" and "An Inconvenient Truth". And the only thing I hate worse than "Robots" is that fatass hypocrite Al Gore. I'll pass on this one for sure.

This sounds good enough to actually get me into a theater again instead of just buying the thing outright on DVD.

I can't wait!

"I'll pass on this one for sure."

Sigh...

Jim posted a short synopsis of the first third of the movie. That's really enough for you to dismiss it entirely?

Wow.  So original, so amazing, blah blah blah.  People, stop drinking the Pixar Kool-Aid.  This movie sounds absolutely hideous.

A cute little robot on Earth who collects Rubiks Cubes and watches "Hello, Dolly" along with his pet cockroach Spot.  How sugary sweet.  How cloyingly awful.

And then he falls for a sleek hot flying robot, and pining for her, follows her into space on a heart-warming voyage of self-discovery.  Who doesn't love a good animated voyage of self-discovery?  Like I said, totally original.

Pixar's losing it.  "Cars" looked pretty but was a trite, overlong bore.  "Ratatouille" is a talking animal film (how original!) featuring a rat (how original!) -- so you just know that's gonna disappoint.  And now this Wall-E crap.  Pixar's entering their "late-90s Disney" phase.

Dopo le rivelazioni della scorsa settimana su Pirati 3, Jim Hill racconta la storia di WALL-E, il film Pixar del 2008, finora avvolto in un alone di mistero: In un futuro non lontano, la Terra è diventata invivibile causa...

I for one am excited...it sounds very unique, and very different, and very out of this world (no pun intended). It'll be nice to see something new. I think, though, that I'm most excited about "Holly, Dolly!"... I was a part of a local production of "Dolly" (which would make a wonderful animated musical if i may say) a year ago and I enjoyed every bit of it...

...anyway, I'm excited.

..."humans have grown even more lazy in the 700 years that they've been off Earth -- we're all now just these enormous fat blobs who can only move about because we travel in huge floating lounge chairs."

Oooh boy, that's kind of a red flag.  Audiences have generally not warmed to these movies that basically hold the premise that, left to its own devices, the human race will eventually go straight to hell in an orgy of violence ("Zardoz", "Death Race 2000"), narcissistic youth-worship ("Logan's Run"), obedience ("Soylent Green"), etc.  I think in Peoria, it plays as a very elitist conceit.  It's not a 100% deal killer -- "The Road Warrior" did pretty well in its post-apocalypictic milieu -- but that strikes me as potentially a huge turnoff for Pixar to be telling me that the human race is doomed to fat, floating blob-dom because we're all so lazy and stupid.  Wasn't the point of "Star Wars" that it liberated us from this kind of sci-fi premise?

Huge, huge risk for Stanton's movie to take, and I don't know that it's even a sufficiently clever or novel idea to merit the risk.

Don't forget the Matrix movies.  And the movies named are all dramas, there haven't really been any comedic/satirical looks at a post-apocalyptic scenario.  Not to mention that Happy Feet certainly didn't seem to suffer at the box office from having an environmental message.

I work for the movie industry.

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Don't make yourself sound like you do.

'Cuz some Farkers belive anything they hear.

LOL! How can you dislike something when you know little, if anything, about it? Wow. Some of you folks just seem to NEED something to bitch about or put down.

As for me, the bits of info we have been told seem very interesting and, as always, I will reserve my judgement until I have actually SEEN the darn thing!

captainhook91:

"LOL! How can you dislike something when you know little, if anything, about it? Wow. Some of you folks just seem to NEED something to bitch about or put down.

As for me, the bits of info we have been told seem very interesting and, as always, I will reserve my judgement until I have actually SEEN the darn thing!"

Wise words my friend.

I think that people should hold off on judgement untill we actually get to see the movie.  and for my money, I think it sounds interesting, it has me mystefied, and I want to see more.

Wow! Thanks, Jim! That's really different from anything that PIxar has done

before. It'll be interesting to find out more as things progress

and change (as they inevitably do).

Thanks for the extremely early peek!

Great.  Another movie for Al Gore tree-huggers to champion how we humans can't take touch the Earth we live on.  Bravo.

On the other hand, it looks like a great concept from Pixar and I bet it'll do very good business and be entertaining.

Sounds like a great short.

Does not sound like a great movie.

I still think Wall-E is great design. More emotive and sympathetic than any of the dull characters in Cars. To me.

I'll be curious to see how heavy-handed they get with this. Couldn't be more than, say, Happy Feet. But heavy-handed enviromental messages are getting tiresome in animated movies.

Any word on whether Ed Beagley, Jr has been cast?

As an unabashed Pixar geek, I'll quickly note -- for my fellow Pixar geeks in the audience -- that Jim Hill Media has two articles with spoiler-ish teasers for the computer-animated film studio's next movies, Ratatouille and WALL-E.

I had no interest in Cars when it was painted as a love song to NASCAR and the like. That is not what the flic was about, as we all saw. Lassiter, Stanton and chums pump more heart into the opening credits of their films than their contemporaries at Blue Sky, Dreamworks, etc. do in their entire films.

Disney should count their blessings that PIXAR didn't jump ship as many thought they would. We all have seen Mouse House's poor efforts (such as Chicken Little) under the auspices of doing it all themselves.

Jim writes:

"But what do you actually know about Pixar's 2008 release? Very little, I'll bet. Which is standard operating procedure for this Emeryville-based animation studio. They like keeping the storylines for their upcoming animated features under lock & key for as long as possible.

But "WALL E" went over the wall (so to speak) last week. You see, I had the chance to talk with someone associated with this new Andrew Stanton film who just couldn't contain themselves. They had to talk about "WALL E."

NO.  Actually, they didn't have to talk about WALL E.   There are very good reasons why Pixar keeps a tight lid on these things . IF this person being alluded to above even exists  I can only hope that this misguided blabbermouth will soon be cleaning out their office and escorted to the gate by Pixar security .  

Sounds like one of two possibilities:

1. Someone is pulling your leg. AKA:Disinformation

2. This will be Pixar's first guaranteed bomb.

Given how amazingly insipid, cliche, and preachy this sounds, I'll go for number 1. In the event of number 2, well if Pixar is looking for another big movie, elminating most conservatives and non-gaia worshipers from the audience from day one is giving it a huge handicap. Of course, it may be that Jobs et al have overdosed on Al Gore's scare fest and just can't wait to use the power at their disposal to move the ignorant public into the path of righteousness. In any case, if it's anything like the description, I sure as heck won't be going.  

I sort of find it curious the number of people who imply you should go see a film before you judge it ... I mean this sounds good on the surface, but based on that wouldn't you have to go see every movie ever made?

I think people pre-judge stories and movies based on trailers and commercials every day. Isn't that why some films bomb and some do well? I mean if everyone had to go to a movie before they could figure out if it was something they wanted to see or not, then every movie ever made would have a billion dollar box.

I think what these people are trying to say is, "I think this sounds like a great movie, why don't you agree with me?"

Why can't people just accept that not everyone likes the same stuff? Some people read this and thought, "Hey, this sounds cool!!" which is fine. Others read it and thought, "This doesn't sound like something I'd be intereted in seeing." Can't that be okay, too?

I'm going just far enough into this conversation to say, this movie sounds adorable.  Yes, coming from a straight male teenager, adorable.  I'm looking forward to this.  End of my comment; now I'm going to back away in peace.

this sounds like it could be a very important film for our time, if what jim says is true. very artistic, original, and inventive.

although, im not going to put ALL of my faith in what JH says.......

it does seem a little strange that Pixar wouldnt put a lot of dialogue in their film..

all though i dont want to be preached to either, it sounds incredibly interesting.

so how bout naysayers shut their mouths untill they see a full length trailer?

whaddya say?

XD

Pampered pooches, the Prince of Persia, even Shaolin monks are expected to make appearances in Disney's releases for 2008. Jim Hill gives a brief run-down of some of the more interesting movies that Mickey currently has in its production pipeline