How worried should we be?

How worried should we be?

The last good animated movie of its era to succumb to shameless cash grab.

God help us all.

it's in good hands

>we'll never do sequels unless we have great ideas for them
>do two Cars sequels
I haven't liked a Pixar movie since Up. Toy Story 3 was just Toy Story 2 again

Agreed about Toy Story 3. Toy Story 2 was the perfect ending for those characters, Woody accepted Andy would one day grow up like a normal kid so learned to accept the time they would still have left.

Then TS3 comes along and Andy is an autist and Woody is an obsessive faggot again.

>It's in rubbing hands*
ftfy

not at all? the incredibles came out 13 years ago. they've had time to make to good what else do you want?

its brad bird you fucking idiots

you shouldnt unless youre a manchild hoping for a sequel that "grew up with its audience"

Optimistic but wary

All the ingredients are good but the times have changed

There is a difference between feeling prepared to experience something and actually experiencing it.

You should try and alleviate your potential fear of death as much as possible if it bothers you, but when it is actually knocking on the door, you will probably be shitting yourself regardless of what you did (and that's okay)

Its shit that it is coming out 15 years later and yet is set immediately after the first film.

I would only give it a chance if the characters were able to grow and mature. But to have them all still be the same means no character progression in over a decade and meanwhile the actors have aged and animation will be more sophisticated

>The Incredibles came out in 2004
Imagine if a movie were released in 1970, and its sequel came out in 1983. What a joke that would be. A shameless and wholly transparent cash grab. This is no different.

>feeling anything
get on my level plebs

I feel nothing but rage.

>tfw it takes too much energy to get angry anymore

Why is it impossible for a sequel for a movie to be good if it comes out over a decade later? I'll admit that often these types of films tend to be motivated mainly by money, but that doesn't mean they can't be good.

I'm fairly sure especially in regards to The Incredibles that the director said he wouldn't even touch it unless he had something really worthwhile creatively.

>the director said he wouldn't even touch it unless he had something really worthwhile creatively.
They always say that.

>Why is it impossible for a sequel for a movie to be good if it comes out over a decade later?
>implying Unforgiven isn't the conclusion to the man with no name movies

Your post is written like a cracked article
>reach the end of my life
>remember the pseudo-paternalisic consolation given by user in my last moments
>the user that was always trying to reassure and guide other posters
were the same, you and I

This might be the best animated movie of its year, keeping my hopes high

It's not. But fuck me is that a great movie/series of movies

It isn't impossible. Hell with how many times we have gotten blatant cash grab sequels in the past few years it would be statistically improbable for some of them not to be decent.

It doesn't stop it from being a shitty lazy creatively bankrupt system feeding off nostalgia and brand awareness.

Going by the logo it will be a 9 out of 11.

nice

>How worried should we be?
>worried
you shouldn't be worried in the slightest. it's a corporate, committee created children's movie. whether it's good, bad or otherwise shouldn't cause even the slightest amount of worry since I doubt you're financially invested in its outcome.