<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_09_1921233</id>
	<title>Pixar's Next Three Films Will Be Sequels</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244548980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:simon\_brew@dennis.co.uk" rel="nofollow">brumgrunt</a> writes <i>"Should we be worried? As Pixar, with <em>Up</em>, once more proves itself to be home to some of the most original and daring blockbusters on the planet, the news that its <a href="http://denofgeek.com/movies/264007/monsters\_inc\_to\_get\_a\_sequel\_so\_wheres\_pixar\_heading.html">next three films are likely to be sequels</a> &mdash; with the confirmation of <em>Monsters, Inc. 2</em> &mdash; gives cause for concern. Are commercial pressures catching up with one of our most inventive movie companies?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>brumgrunt writes " Should we be worried ?
As Pixar , with Up , once more proves itself to be home to some of the most original and daring blockbusters on the planet , the news that its next three films are likely to be sequels    with the confirmation of Monsters , Inc. 2    gives cause for concern .
Are commercial pressures catching up with one of our most inventive movie companies ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>brumgrunt writes "Should we be worried?
As Pixar, with Up, once more proves itself to be home to some of the most original and daring blockbusters on the planet, the news that its next three films are likely to be sequels — with the confirmation of Monsters, Inc. 2 — gives cause for concern.
Are commercial pressures catching up with one of our most inventive movie companies?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273571</id>
	<title>Flatly Untrue</title>
	<author>Snowspinner</author>
	<datestamp>1244554020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, Pixar has two announced films not mentioned here - The Bear and the Bow and Newt - both of which are original properties. Bear and the Bow is slated to share 2011 with Cars 2, and Newt is set for 2012.</p><p>Second of all, the suggestion that the "most likely" date for Monsters Inc 2 is 2012 is tenuous at best. The only time in the last decade Pixar has had a director do two films with only three years in between is when Brad Bird did Ratatouille three years after The Incredibles, and that was him coming on a film in mid-production. If Docter is directing it, it would be surprising to see it before 2013.</p><p>This story, in other words, is nonsense - the only actual content to it is that there's a sequel to Monsters Inc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , Pixar has two announced films not mentioned here - The Bear and the Bow and Newt - both of which are original properties .
Bear and the Bow is slated to share 2011 with Cars 2 , and Newt is set for 2012.Second of all , the suggestion that the " most likely " date for Monsters Inc 2 is 2012 is tenuous at best .
The only time in the last decade Pixar has had a director do two films with only three years in between is when Brad Bird did Ratatouille three years after The Incredibles , and that was him coming on a film in mid-production .
If Docter is directing it , it would be surprising to see it before 2013.This story , in other words , is nonsense - the only actual content to it is that there 's a sequel to Monsters Inc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, Pixar has two announced films not mentioned here - The Bear and the Bow and Newt - both of which are original properties.
Bear and the Bow is slated to share 2011 with Cars 2, and Newt is set for 2012.Second of all, the suggestion that the "most likely" date for Monsters Inc 2 is 2012 is tenuous at best.
The only time in the last decade Pixar has had a director do two films with only three years in between is when Brad Bird did Ratatouille three years after The Incredibles, and that was him coming on a film in mid-production.
If Docter is directing it, it would be surprising to see it before 2013.This story, in other words, is nonsense - the only actual content to it is that there's a sequel to Monsters Inc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274293</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1244560440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years. Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)? I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.</i></p><p>Don't even diss Lilo and Stitch, or I will come over there and personally kick your ass! Or The Emperor's New Groove, for that matter. (Although, given, other than those two Disney's been pretty poor.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years .
Go ahead , what was the last good original animated Disney movie ( not counting those made by Pixar ) ?
I do n't know , but I 'm estimating something like 20 years ago.Do n't even diss Lilo and Stitch , or I will come over there and personally kick your ass !
Or The Emperor 's New Groove , for that matter .
( Although , given , other than those two Disney 's been pretty poor .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years.
Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)?
I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.Don't even diss Lilo and Stitch, or I will come over there and personally kick your ass!
Or The Emperor's New Groove, for that matter.
(Although, given, other than those two Disney's been pretty poor.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277695</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>16K Ram Pack</author>
	<datestamp>1244637900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bolt was quite good.</p><p>The thing is that Bob Iger is a different character to previous Disney CEOs. He wants quality more than just cashing in. That's why they bought Pixar and put Lasseter in quite a high position in Disney.</p><p>Remember, before the big 4 films of the early 90s (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and Lion King), that Disney had been making dreck and renewed themselves (albeit temporarily).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bolt was quite good.The thing is that Bob Iger is a different character to previous Disney CEOs .
He wants quality more than just cashing in .
That 's why they bought Pixar and put Lasseter in quite a high position in Disney.Remember , before the big 4 films of the early 90s ( Little Mermaid , Beauty and the Beast , Aladdin and Lion King ) , that Disney had been making dreck and renewed themselves ( albeit temporarily ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bolt was quite good.The thing is that Bob Iger is a different character to previous Disney CEOs.
He wants quality more than just cashing in.
That's why they bought Pixar and put Lasseter in quite a high position in Disney.Remember, before the big 4 films of the early 90s (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and Lion King), that Disney had been making dreck and renewed themselves (albeit temporarily).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274379</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1244561100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're being unfair. Dreamworks might not be the most brilliant studio in the history of the world, but they're definitely healthy competition, and you can guarantee that when, for example, a Over the Hedge or Kung-Fu Panda comes out it gets Pixar taking a close look at their own film pipeline.</p><p>It's a hell of a lot more healthy than, say, the consumer broadband market in the US. Or the operating systems market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're being unfair .
Dreamworks might not be the most brilliant studio in the history of the world , but they 're definitely healthy competition , and you can guarantee that when , for example , a Over the Hedge or Kung-Fu Panda comes out it gets Pixar taking a close look at their own film pipeline.It 's a hell of a lot more healthy than , say , the consumer broadband market in the US .
Or the operating systems market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're being unfair.
Dreamworks might not be the most brilliant studio in the history of the world, but they're definitely healthy competition, and you can guarantee that when, for example, a Over the Hedge or Kung-Fu Panda comes out it gets Pixar taking a close look at their own film pipeline.It's a hell of a lot more healthy than, say, the consumer broadband market in the US.
Or the operating systems market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275533</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Swampash</author>
	<datestamp>1244570940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>whatever Shrek sequel is coming down the pipeline</i></p><p>You misspelled "colon"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>whatever Shrek sequel is coming down the pipelineYou misspelled " colon "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whatever Shrek sequel is coming down the pipelineYou misspelled "colon"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273565</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Bluesman</author>
	<datestamp>1244553900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully they'll start making good movies for young children again.</p><p>There are about five or six quality movies made over the past twenty years that I can feel good about showing to my 2 and 4 year old without worrying about them picking up extremely bad behaviors, being scared to death by the obligatory and unnecessary "scary part", or being bored to tears.  Other than Curious George and Charlotte's Web, they're all Pixar movies.</p><p>They love Cars, Monsters, Inc., The Incredibles, and both Toy Story movies, and I don't mind watching those more than once either.  But lately it seems like Pixar is making movies to impress themselves while forgetting who their audience is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully they 'll start making good movies for young children again.There are about five or six quality movies made over the past twenty years that I can feel good about showing to my 2 and 4 year old without worrying about them picking up extremely bad behaviors , being scared to death by the obligatory and unnecessary " scary part " , or being bored to tears .
Other than Curious George and Charlotte 's Web , they 're all Pixar movies.They love Cars , Monsters , Inc. , The Incredibles , and both Toy Story movies , and I do n't mind watching those more than once either .
But lately it seems like Pixar is making movies to impress themselves while forgetting who their audience is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully they'll start making good movies for young children again.There are about five or six quality movies made over the past twenty years that I can feel good about showing to my 2 and 4 year old without worrying about them picking up extremely bad behaviors, being scared to death by the obligatory and unnecessary "scary part", or being bored to tears.
Other than Curious George and Charlotte's Web, they're all Pixar movies.They love Cars, Monsters, Inc., The Incredibles, and both Toy Story movies, and I don't mind watching those more than once either.
But lately it seems like Pixar is making movies to impress themselves while forgetting who their audience is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273855</id>
	<title>Incredibles 2</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1244556300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not that worried since Pixar does seem very committed to quality, as Up has demonstrated once again.  What I don't understand is why Incredibles, the film that I think lends itself most to a sequel isn't getting the sequel treatment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not that worried since Pixar does seem very committed to quality , as Up has demonstrated once again .
What I do n't understand is why Incredibles , the film that I think lends itself most to a sequel is n't getting the sequel treatment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not that worried since Pixar does seem very committed to quality, as Up has demonstrated once again.
What I don't understand is why Incredibles, the film that I think lends itself most to a sequel isn't getting the sequel treatment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273579</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>Micge</author>
	<datestamp>1244554080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's like Pixar said themselves: For inspiration we watch what Studio Ghibli has made. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio\_Ghibli)

At any rate it cant be worse than what disney next "classic" is going to be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like Pixar said themselves : For inspiration we watch what Studio Ghibli has made .
( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio \ _Ghibli ) At any rate it cant be worse than what disney next " classic " is going to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like Pixar said themselves: For inspiration we watch what Studio Ghibli has made.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio\_Ghibli)

At any rate it cant be worse than what disney next "classic" is going to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277803</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>cheekyboy</author>
	<datestamp>1244639040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldnt mind seeing a Bad Santa 2, that was hillarious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wouldnt mind seeing a Bad Santa 2 , that was hillarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldnt mind seeing a Bad Santa 2, that was hillarious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274655</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1244563620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For one thing, Up was most definitely not a children's film.  In children's films, the villain doesn't tie a protagonist to a chair and drop him out of a blimp.  That's straight over the <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon" title="tvtropes.org">moral event horizon</a> [tvtropes.org] for a kids' film.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For one thing , Up was most definitely not a children 's film .
In children 's films , the villain does n't tie a protagonist to a chair and drop him out of a blimp .
That 's straight over the moral event horizon [ tvtropes.org ] for a kids ' film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For one thing, Up was most definitely not a children's film.
In children's films, the villain doesn't tie a protagonist to a chair and drop him out of a blimp.
That's straight over the moral event horizon [tvtropes.org] for a kids' film.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28280051</id>
	<title>Re:TFA is...</title>
	<author>bpgslashdotaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1244650380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>John Carter of Mars?!?!<br> <br>

How the heck are they going to get The Incomparable Dejah Thoris into a kids' movie?</htmltext>
<tokenext>John Carter of Mars ? ! ? !
How the heck are they going to get The Incomparable Dejah Thoris into a kids ' movie ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John Carter of Mars?!?!
How the heck are they going to get The Incomparable Dejah Thoris into a kids' movie?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277067</id>
	<title>Re:Baseless Speculation</title>
	<author>Rakarra</author>
	<datestamp>1244630220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That blog post is in error -- "The Bear and the Bow" will be all-Disney, not Pixar. Pixar's next flicks are Toy Story 2, NEWT, and Cars 2.</p></div><p>That is incorrect, The Bear and the Bow is a purely Pixar feature, and is directed by Brenda Chapman, who currently works at Pixar. You may be thinking of The King of the Elves, a Disney production set to be released in 2012.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That blog post is in error -- " The Bear and the Bow " will be all-Disney , not Pixar .
Pixar 's next flicks are Toy Story 2 , NEWT , and Cars 2.That is incorrect , The Bear and the Bow is a purely Pixar feature , and is directed by Brenda Chapman , who currently works at Pixar .
You may be thinking of The King of the Elves , a Disney production set to be released in 2012 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That blog post is in error -- "The Bear and the Bow" will be all-Disney, not Pixar.
Pixar's next flicks are Toy Story 2, NEWT, and Cars 2.That is incorrect, The Bear and the Bow is a purely Pixar feature, and is directed by Brenda Chapman, who currently works at Pixar.
You may be thinking of The King of the Elves, a Disney production set to be released in 2012.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274135</id>
	<title>Luxo Jr., Grow Up Would Ya</title>
	<author>d'baba</author>
	<datestamp>1244559000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I kept hoping the Pixar-Disney marriage would sour. I really wanted Pixar to take on some adult themes. Their current work is Good, even Great sometimes, but there is so much more possible in animation than the Disney Playbook.<br>
---<br>
Free The Mouse</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I kept hoping the Pixar-Disney marriage would sour .
I really wanted Pixar to take on some adult themes .
Their current work is Good , even Great sometimes , but there is so much more possible in animation than the Disney Playbook .
--- Free The Mouse</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I kept hoping the Pixar-Disney marriage would sour.
I really wanted Pixar to take on some adult themes.
Their current work is Good, even Great sometimes, but there is so much more possible in animation than the Disney Playbook.
---
Free The Mouse</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273657</id>
	<title>Ya! Finally..</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1244554800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Commenters on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/film!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...oh, wait..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Commenters on /film !
...oh , wait. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Commenters on /film!
...oh, wait..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278387</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>livid\_gnome</author>
	<datestamp>1244643240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For one thing, Up was most definitely not a children's film.  In children's films, the villain doesn't tie a protagonist to a chair and drop him out of a blimp.  That's straight over the <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon" title="tvtropes.org" rel="nofollow">moral event horizon</a> [tvtropes.org] for a kids' film.</p></div><p>Villians in past childrens movies have done things like, "cursed the infant Princess Aurora to 'prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and die' before the sun set on her sixteenth birthday after not being invited to the baby's christening" (Maleficent, the villain of sleeping beauty).

The queen in Snow White makes several attempts on Snow White's life "First, she visits the dwarves' house as an old peddler woman, and sells Snow White laces for a corset; but laces them tightly to asphyxiate her. When that fails, she returns as a different old woman, and tricks Snow White into using a poisoned comb. Finally when the comb fails to kill her, she visits again as a farmer's wife, and gives Snow White a poisoned apple."

So clearly all past villians have been peaches and cream without a hint of malice or evil.

All quotes taken from Wikipedia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For one thing , Up was most definitely not a children 's film .
In children 's films , the villain does n't tie a protagonist to a chair and drop him out of a blimp .
That 's straight over the moral event horizon [ tvtropes.org ] for a kids ' film.Villians in past childrens movies have done things like , " cursed the infant Princess Aurora to 'prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and die ' before the sun set on her sixteenth birthday after not being invited to the baby 's christening " ( Maleficent , the villain of sleeping beauty ) .
The queen in Snow White makes several attempts on Snow White 's life " First , she visits the dwarves ' house as an old peddler woman , and sells Snow White laces for a corset ; but laces them tightly to asphyxiate her .
When that fails , she returns as a different old woman , and tricks Snow White into using a poisoned comb .
Finally when the comb fails to kill her , she visits again as a farmer 's wife , and gives Snow White a poisoned apple .
" So clearly all past villians have been peaches and cream without a hint of malice or evil .
All quotes taken from Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For one thing, Up was most definitely not a children's film.
In children's films, the villain doesn't tie a protagonist to a chair and drop him out of a blimp.
That's straight over the moral event horizon [tvtropes.org] for a kids' film.Villians in past childrens movies have done things like, "cursed the infant Princess Aurora to 'prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and die' before the sun set on her sixteenth birthday after not being invited to the baby's christening" (Maleficent, the villain of sleeping beauty).
The queen in Snow White makes several attempts on Snow White's life "First, she visits the dwarves' house as an old peddler woman, and sells Snow White laces for a corset; but laces them tightly to asphyxiate her.
When that fails, she returns as a different old woman, and tricks Snow White into using a poisoned comb.
Finally when the comb fails to kill her, she visits again as a farmer's wife, and gives Snow White a poisoned apple.
"

So clearly all past villians have been peaches and cream without a hint of malice or evil.
All quotes taken from Wikipedia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273729</id>
	<title>depends on who's doing the sequels</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1244555340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's Disney doing a sequel to a Pixar movie, that's probably bad. If it's Pixar doing a sequel, (ala Toy Story 2, which I much prefer to Toy Story), then it's probably okay.</p><p>Don't be hatin'!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's Disney doing a sequel to a Pixar movie , that 's probably bad .
If it 's Pixar doing a sequel , ( ala Toy Story 2 , which I much prefer to Toy Story ) , then it 's probably okay.Do n't be hatin ' !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's Disney doing a sequel to a Pixar movie, that's probably bad.
If it's Pixar doing a sequel, (ala Toy Story 2, which I much prefer to Toy Story), then it's probably okay.Don't be hatin'!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244557560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)?  I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.</p></div><p>I'd say Mulan, but that might be pushing it for some people. Maybe Tarzan, if you don't mind Phil Collins. The unarguable one is The Hunchback of Notre Dame, without a doubt, in 1996.<br> <br>Regardless, far less than twenty years.<br> <br>Besides, all Disney has been doing is trying non-sequels. Chicken Little, Bolt, Enchanted, and the new, not-white princess that all of the news outlets tittered over for a few months. All original. So if Disney was working Pixar, I'm sure they'd be pushing the same way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go ahead , what was the last good original animated Disney movie ( not counting those made by Pixar ) ?
I do n't know , but I 'm estimating something like 20 years ago.I 'd say Mulan , but that might be pushing it for some people .
Maybe Tarzan , if you do n't mind Phil Collins .
The unarguable one is The Hunchback of Notre Dame , without a doubt , in 1996 .
Regardless , far less than twenty years .
Besides , all Disney has been doing is trying non-sequels .
Chicken Little , Bolt , Enchanted , and the new , not-white princess that all of the news outlets tittered over for a few months .
All original .
So if Disney was working Pixar , I 'm sure they 'd be pushing the same way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)?
I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.I'd say Mulan, but that might be pushing it for some people.
Maybe Tarzan, if you don't mind Phil Collins.
The unarguable one is The Hunchback of Notre Dame, without a doubt, in 1996.
Regardless, far less than twenty years.
Besides, all Disney has been doing is trying non-sequels.
Chicken Little, Bolt, Enchanted, and the new, not-white princess that all of the news outlets tittered over for a few months.
All original.
So if Disney was working Pixar, I'm sure they'd be pushing the same way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278309</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1244642820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was about to say pretty much exactly the same thing. It's incontrovertible that Hunchback was a great film. The characterization of Frollo alone justifies such an assertion. I have a soft spot for Mulan and Tarzan, but I recognize that from Hunchback, it's all downhill with varying grades of unimprovement between films. Although I did hear that Bolt was good (RT gives it an 88\% fresh, which is <b>very</b> good, but I know how very little Slashdot respects the opinions of critics--the RT community (only fans) also gave Bolt 88\% freshness). I just didn't see it because of Disney's recent poor track record and I took this as evidence that Disney thinks "3D == good."</p><p>And I only bring up Bolt because Bolt is in Disney's "canon" of Animated Classics (Snow White, Pinocchio,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..., Beauty and the Best, Aladdin, Lion King,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...). So it "counts."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was about to say pretty much exactly the same thing .
It 's incontrovertible that Hunchback was a great film .
The characterization of Frollo alone justifies such an assertion .
I have a soft spot for Mulan and Tarzan , but I recognize that from Hunchback , it 's all downhill with varying grades of unimprovement between films .
Although I did hear that Bolt was good ( RT gives it an 88 \ % fresh , which is very good , but I know how very little Slashdot respects the opinions of critics--the RT community ( only fans ) also gave Bolt 88 \ % freshness ) .
I just did n't see it because of Disney 's recent poor track record and I took this as evidence that Disney thinks " 3D = = good .
" And I only bring up Bolt because Bolt is in Disney 's " canon " of Animated Classics ( Snow White , Pinocchio , ... , Beauty and the Best , Aladdin , Lion King , ... ) .
So it " counts .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was about to say pretty much exactly the same thing.
It's incontrovertible that Hunchback was a great film.
The characterization of Frollo alone justifies such an assertion.
I have a soft spot for Mulan and Tarzan, but I recognize that from Hunchback, it's all downhill with varying grades of unimprovement between films.
Although I did hear that Bolt was good (RT gives it an 88\% fresh, which is very good, but I know how very little Slashdot respects the opinions of critics--the RT community (only fans) also gave Bolt 88\% freshness).
I just didn't see it because of Disney's recent poor track record and I took this as evidence that Disney thinks "3D == good.
"And I only bring up Bolt because Bolt is in Disney's "canon" of Animated Classics (Snow White, Pinocchio, ..., Beauty and the Best, Aladdin, Lion King, ...).
So it "counts.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278505</id>
	<title>fyreous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244643900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not worried at all. Pixar has yet to make a bad movie; and as with Toy Story 2, they proved that if they choose to make a sequel, they sure as hell can do a fine job of it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not worried at all .
Pixar has yet to make a bad movie ; and as with Toy Story 2 , they proved that if they choose to make a sequel , they sure as hell can do a fine job of it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not worried at all.
Pixar has yet to make a bad movie; and as with Toy Story 2, they proved that if they choose to make a sequel, they sure as hell can do a fine job of it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28285347</id>
	<title>Re:fairly well insulated</title>
	<author>agrif</author>
	<datestamp>1244628660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as we're mentioning garage bands and low-budget movies as acceptable stand-ins for, say, the Flaming Lips and the Dark Knight, I thought I may as well mention <a href="http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/" title="bigbuckbunny.org" rel="nofollow">Big Buck Bunny</a> [bigbuckbunny.org] and <a href="http://www.elephantsdream.org/" title="elephantsdream.org" rel="nofollow">Elephants Dream</a> [elephantsdream.org].</p><p>Sure, Elephants Dream was a bit odd on the story and acting side, but it was visually impressive. BBB was a standard cartoony short. These were not at Pixar's level, but they were released under a Creative Commons license with all of their sources.</p><p>I've been hearing good things about <a href="http://durian.blender.org/" title="blender.org" rel="nofollow">Durian</a> [blender.org], too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as we 're mentioning garage bands and low-budget movies as acceptable stand-ins for , say , the Flaming Lips and the Dark Knight , I thought I may as well mention Big Buck Bunny [ bigbuckbunny.org ] and Elephants Dream [ elephantsdream.org ] .Sure , Elephants Dream was a bit odd on the story and acting side , but it was visually impressive .
BBB was a standard cartoony short .
These were not at Pixar 's level , but they were released under a Creative Commons license with all of their sources.I 've been hearing good things about Durian [ blender.org ] , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as we're mentioning garage bands and low-budget movies as acceptable stand-ins for, say, the Flaming Lips and the Dark Knight, I thought I may as well mention Big Buck Bunny [bigbuckbunny.org] and Elephants Dream [elephantsdream.org].Sure, Elephants Dream was a bit odd on the story and acting side, but it was visually impressive.
BBB was a standard cartoony short.
These were not at Pixar's level, but they were released under a Creative Commons license with all of their sources.I've been hearing good things about Durian [blender.org], too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273447</id>
	<title>Who didn't see this coming?</title>
	<author>peektwice</author>
	<datestamp>1244553180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is Disney's modus operandi. The differences are that Pixar films have great story lines and aren't musicals.
Other than that, I for one totally expected that Disney would start making sequels. Guess what's next...limited re-releases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Disney 's modus operandi .
The differences are that Pixar films have great story lines and are n't musicals .
Other than that , I for one totally expected that Disney would start making sequels .
Guess what 's next...limited re-releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Disney's modus operandi.
The differences are that Pixar films have great story lines and aren't musicals.
Other than that, I for one totally expected that Disney would start making sequels.
Guess what's next...limited re-releases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28283011</id>
	<title>Fluke</title>
	<author>bussdriver</author>
	<datestamp>1244662380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lilo and Stich was a FLUKE. It was as if they were trying to knock off Pixar as a last ditch effort to save that division which I believe was closed after that film.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lilo and Stich was a FLUKE .
It was as if they were trying to knock off Pixar as a last ditch effort to save that division which I believe was closed after that film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lilo and Stich was a FLUKE.
It was as if they were trying to knock off Pixar as a last ditch effort to save that division which I believe was closed after that film.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274237</id>
	<title>Just one thing I have to say:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244559960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as they don't suck, I'm fine with sequels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they do n't suck , I 'm fine with sequels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as they don't suck, I'm fine with sequels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28281635</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244656860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the Listerine Cool Mint commercial of which you speak, Listerine "tarzanned" around to the appropriately named tune:  Tarzan Boy by Baltimora.  It was from sometime in the 1990s.</p><p>The commercial with Hooked on a Feeling was from 2005, and I don't think Pixar did that one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the Listerine Cool Mint commercial of which you speak , Listerine " tarzanned " around to the appropriately named tune : Tarzan Boy by Baltimora .
It was from sometime in the 1990s.The commercial with Hooked on a Feeling was from 2005 , and I do n't think Pixar did that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the Listerine Cool Mint commercial of which you speak, Listerine "tarzanned" around to the appropriately named tune:  Tarzan Boy by Baltimora.
It was from sometime in the 1990s.The commercial with Hooked on a Feeling was from 2005, and I don't think Pixar did that one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273587</id>
	<title>DISNEY"S fault!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244554200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't for one minute blame Pixar, All this is because Disney want to make a quick buck. Look at Lion King, Aladdin, etc... Sequels,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Disney, before buying Pixar, threaten with cheap non CG sequels to Toy story, Monsters INC, Cars. Because Disney had the rights to do so.</p><p>So these sequels were going to happen either way.</p><p>Still, it's sad that now Pixar is left to do sequels, and thus, in my opinion is going to stunt the vision and drive within the company.</p><p>I love Pixar, but I believe it's the beginning of the end for Pixar as a leader in Animation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't for one minute blame Pixar , All this is because Disney want to make a quick buck .
Look at Lion King , Aladdin , etc... Sequels , ...Disney , before buying Pixar , threaten with cheap non CG sequels to Toy story , Monsters INC , Cars .
Because Disney had the rights to do so.So these sequels were going to happen either way.Still , it 's sad that now Pixar is left to do sequels , and thus , in my opinion is going to stunt the vision and drive within the company.I love Pixar , but I believe it 's the beginning of the end for Pixar as a leader in Animation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't for one minute blame Pixar, All this is because Disney want to make a quick buck.
Look at Lion King, Aladdin, etc... Sequels, ...Disney, before buying Pixar, threaten with cheap non CG sequels to Toy story, Monsters INC, Cars.
Because Disney had the rights to do so.So these sequels were going to happen either way.Still, it's sad that now Pixar is left to do sequels, and thus, in my opinion is going to stunt the vision and drive within the company.I love Pixar, but I believe it's the beginning of the end for Pixar as a leader in Animation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274565</id>
	<title>Re:Baseless Speculation</title>
	<author>mblase</author>
	<datestamp>1244562660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That blog post is in error -- "The Bear and the Bow" will be all-Disney, not Pixar. Pixar's next flicks are Toy Story 2, NEWT, and Cars 2.</p><p>In my opinion, there was probably some pressure from Disney's merchandising arm to make sequels to Toy Story and Cars, since each of those two have much more to sell in the toy aisle than any other Pixar film to date.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That blog post is in error -- " The Bear and the Bow " will be all-Disney , not Pixar .
Pixar 's next flicks are Toy Story 2 , NEWT , and Cars 2.In my opinion , there was probably some pressure from Disney 's merchandising arm to make sequels to Toy Story and Cars , since each of those two have much more to sell in the toy aisle than any other Pixar film to date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That blog post is in error -- "The Bear and the Bow" will be all-Disney, not Pixar.
Pixar's next flicks are Toy Story 2, NEWT, and Cars 2.In my opinion, there was probably some pressure from Disney's merchandising arm to make sequels to Toy Story and Cars, since each of those two have much more to sell in the toy aisle than any other Pixar film to date.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275653</id>
	<title>"Bolt" has already shown that Lasseter is only a p</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1244571720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Bolt" has already shown that Lasseter is only a part of Pixar's magic. "Bolt" was a POS Disney movie, just rendered in 3D. As it often happens, the higher ups aren't really worth that much without the right set of grunts in the trenches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bolt " has already shown that Lasseter is only a part of Pixar 's magic .
" Bolt " was a POS Disney movie , just rendered in 3D .
As it often happens , the higher ups are n't really worth that much without the right set of grunts in the trenches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bolt" has already shown that Lasseter is only a part of Pixar's magic.
"Bolt" was a POS Disney movie, just rendered in 3D.
As it often happens, the higher ups aren't really worth that much without the right set of grunts in the trenches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276467</id>
	<title>reddit</title>
	<author>Skizmo</author>
	<datestamp>1244666700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't shit news supposed to be dumped on reddit or digg ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't shit news supposed to be dumped on reddit or digg ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't shit news supposed to be dumped on reddit or digg ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273763</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1244555640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But lately it seems like Pixar is making movies to impress themselves while forgetting who their audience is.</p></div></blockquote><p>It appears to me that you are assuming Pixar's audience is exclusively children. I don't think that's ever been the case. Just because a film has been created using animation techniques it does not necessarily mean it's a a kid's movie--not everyone who enjoys animated features is a kid (or has one).</p><p>Pixar makes sophisticated computer-animated movies that appeal to a wide audience and, for the most part, they can be appreciated on several levels. This was the case with the original Toy Story and it continues to be the right through UP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But lately it seems like Pixar is making movies to impress themselves while forgetting who their audience is.It appears to me that you are assuming Pixar 's audience is exclusively children .
I do n't think that 's ever been the case .
Just because a film has been created using animation techniques it does not necessarily mean it 's a a kid 's movie--not everyone who enjoys animated features is a kid ( or has one ) .Pixar makes sophisticated computer-animated movies that appeal to a wide audience and , for the most part , they can be appreciated on several levels .
This was the case with the original Toy Story and it continues to be the right through UP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But lately it seems like Pixar is making movies to impress themselves while forgetting who their audience is.It appears to me that you are assuming Pixar's audience is exclusively children.
I don't think that's ever been the case.
Just because a film has been created using animation techniques it does not necessarily mean it's a a kid's movie--not everyone who enjoys animated features is a kid (or has one).Pixar makes sophisticated computer-animated movies that appeal to a wide audience and, for the most part, they can be appreciated on several levels.
This was the case with the original Toy Story and it continues to be the right through UP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276349</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>bogjobber</author>
	<datestamp>1244665380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Emperor's New Groove and Lilo &amp; Stitch, while not masterpieces like some Disney features, were very good movies.  But it was in the early to mid 90's that Disney realized it could make far more money by pumping out crappy direct-to-video sequels than on creating new, expensive features.  The first example was Aladdin 2, but there are now too many to name.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Emperor 's New Groove and Lilo &amp; Stitch , while not masterpieces like some Disney features , were very good movies .
But it was in the early to mid 90 's that Disney realized it could make far more money by pumping out crappy direct-to-video sequels than on creating new , expensive features .
The first example was Aladdin 2 , but there are now too many to name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emperor's New Groove and Lilo &amp; Stitch, while not masterpieces like some Disney features, were very good movies.
But it was in the early to mid 90's that Disney realized it could make far more money by pumping out crappy direct-to-video sequels than on creating new, expensive features.
The first example was Aladdin 2, but there are now too many to name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273913</id>
	<title>I tried to read the article...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244556840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but the poorly written sentences make for a hard time at best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but the poorly written sentences make for a hard time at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but the poorly written sentences make for a hard time at best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274443</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244561640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disney didn't make Anastasia, that was Dreamworks.</p><p>Lion King and Aladdin were made over 15 years ago, and Cinderella was made almost 50 years ago.</p><p>So, that doesn't do a lot to support the idea that Disney's turning out good films these days...  I mean, you look at their more recent stuff - "The Emperor's New Groove", "Treasure Planet", "Chicken Little" - some of that just makes a person want to look away again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney did n't make Anastasia , that was Dreamworks.Lion King and Aladdin were made over 15 years ago , and Cinderella was made almost 50 years ago.So , that does n't do a lot to support the idea that Disney 's turning out good films these days... I mean , you look at their more recent stuff - " The Emperor 's New Groove " , " Treasure Planet " , " Chicken Little " - some of that just makes a person want to look away again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney didn't make Anastasia, that was Dreamworks.Lion King and Aladdin were made over 15 years ago, and Cinderella was made almost 50 years ago.So, that doesn't do a lot to support the idea that Disney's turning out good films these days...  I mean, you look at their more recent stuff - "The Emperor's New Groove", "Treasure Planet", "Chicken Little" - some of that just makes a person want to look away again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28281297</id>
	<title>Re:fairly well insulated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244655540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Animation can be done on big budgets or small budgets, and this includes CG.  Student short films are frequently about 10 minutes in length and take a year or two to make.  If a few of these groups got together, maybe worked a little longer, and applied some creative pacing to spread out the work-intensive segments, they could probably create an independent 90-minute CG feature.  (Here's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We\_are\_the\_strange" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">one guy</a> [wikipedia.org] who made his own mostly CG film.)</p><p>Granted, films of the scale of the Pixar or Dreamworks movies may be outside the reach of amateurs, but insisting that independent CG movies will never happen because of budget is like saying that there will never be an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El\_Mariachi" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">El Mariachi</a> [wikipedia.org] because no one can afford to make <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra\_(1934\_film)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Cleopatra</a> [wikipedia.org].  (or that there will never be a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo\_\%26\_Juliet:\_Sealed\_with\_a\_Kiss" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Sealed with a Kiss</a> [wikipedia.org] because no one can afford to make <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Little\_Mermaid\_(1989\_film)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">The Little Mermaid</a> [wikipedia.org]).</p><p>Think about the amount of work someone would have to do if they wanted to recreate Toy Story today (which remains a very good movie even if the look is slightly dated).  All the technical details are already solved, the characters are relatively easy to animate (small cast, no hair and cloth, simple expressions, no humans), and the rendering could probably be done practically in realtime today.  All the work would be story, art direction, and animation.  This would be easily doable by a much smaller team using off-the-shelf software -- even easier if they are willing to cut corners and purchase prebuilt models or strategically leverage motion capture.</p><p>And who knows what the future will bring?  CG is still a hot research area and the hardware and software available to the consumer are continuously improving.  An appropriate advance in performance capture or synthesis could easily drive the cost of animation down, while the rise of asset markets would mitigate the cost of modeling, texturing, and rigging.  I think it's still to early to rule out independent CG animated features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Animation can be done on big budgets or small budgets , and this includes CG .
Student short films are frequently about 10 minutes in length and take a year or two to make .
If a few of these groups got together , maybe worked a little longer , and applied some creative pacing to spread out the work-intensive segments , they could probably create an independent 90-minute CG feature .
( Here 's one guy [ wikipedia.org ] who made his own mostly CG film .
) Granted , films of the scale of the Pixar or Dreamworks movies may be outside the reach of amateurs , but insisting that independent CG movies will never happen because of budget is like saying that there will never be an El Mariachi [ wikipedia.org ] because no one can afford to make Cleopatra [ wikipedia.org ] .
( or that there will never be a Sealed with a Kiss [ wikipedia.org ] because no one can afford to make The Little Mermaid [ wikipedia.org ] ) .Think about the amount of work someone would have to do if they wanted to recreate Toy Story today ( which remains a very good movie even if the look is slightly dated ) .
All the technical details are already solved , the characters are relatively easy to animate ( small cast , no hair and cloth , simple expressions , no humans ) , and the rendering could probably be done practically in realtime today .
All the work would be story , art direction , and animation .
This would be easily doable by a much smaller team using off-the-shelf software -- even easier if they are willing to cut corners and purchase prebuilt models or strategically leverage motion capture.And who knows what the future will bring ?
CG is still a hot research area and the hardware and software available to the consumer are continuously improving .
An appropriate advance in performance capture or synthesis could easily drive the cost of animation down , while the rise of asset markets would mitigate the cost of modeling , texturing , and rigging .
I think it 's still to early to rule out independent CG animated features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Animation can be done on big budgets or small budgets, and this includes CG.
Student short films are frequently about 10 minutes in length and take a year or two to make.
If a few of these groups got together, maybe worked a little longer, and applied some creative pacing to spread out the work-intensive segments, they could probably create an independent 90-minute CG feature.
(Here's one guy [wikipedia.org] who made his own mostly CG film.
)Granted, films of the scale of the Pixar or Dreamworks movies may be outside the reach of amateurs, but insisting that independent CG movies will never happen because of budget is like saying that there will never be an El Mariachi [wikipedia.org] because no one can afford to make Cleopatra [wikipedia.org].
(or that there will never be a Sealed with a Kiss [wikipedia.org] because no one can afford to make The Little Mermaid [wikipedia.org]).Think about the amount of work someone would have to do if they wanted to recreate Toy Story today (which remains a very good movie even if the look is slightly dated).
All the technical details are already solved, the characters are relatively easy to animate (small cast, no hair and cloth, simple expressions, no humans), and the rendering could probably be done practically in realtime today.
All the work would be story, art direction, and animation.
This would be easily doable by a much smaller team using off-the-shelf software -- even easier if they are willing to cut corners and purchase prebuilt models or strategically leverage motion capture.And who knows what the future will bring?
CG is still a hot research area and the hardware and software available to the consumer are continuously improving.
An appropriate advance in performance capture or synthesis could easily drive the cost of animation down, while the rise of asset markets would mitigate the cost of modeling, texturing, and rigging.
I think it's still to early to rule out independent CG animated features.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278627</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1244644500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They were heavy attempts to replay the same old formula that had gone stale. Oh, and they're trying to release yet another movie in the same exact formula, but with a non-white princess?</i></p><p>Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hunchback was not a typical Disney "Princess" movie, although I admit that it shared more elements than it probably should have, considering the subject matter. It also is probably the only Disney movie to include a passionate song about rape: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRO-M4XyAbM" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRO-M4XyAbM</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were heavy attempts to replay the same old formula that had gone stale .
Oh , and they 're trying to release yet another movie in the same exact formula , but with a non-white princess ? Whoa , whoa , whoa .
Hunchback was not a typical Disney " Princess " movie , although I admit that it shared more elements than it probably should have , considering the subject matter .
It also is probably the only Disney movie to include a passionate song about rape : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = fRO-M4XyAbM [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were heavy attempts to replay the same old formula that had gone stale.
Oh, and they're trying to release yet another movie in the same exact formula, but with a non-white princess?Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Hunchback was not a typical Disney "Princess" movie, although I admit that it shared more elements than it probably should have, considering the subject matter.
It also is probably the only Disney movie to include a passionate song about rape: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRO-M4XyAbM [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273557</id>
	<title>Baseless Speculation</title>
	<author>jarbrewer</author>
	<datestamp>1244553840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A quick google search of <a href="http://farnham.blogspot.com/2008/04/pixar-releases-it-production-schedule.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Pixar's production schedule</a> [blogspot.com] might have told the poster, or even the editor, that 2 of Pixar's next 3 movies are in fact new franchises.<p>Sigh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick google search of Pixar 's production schedule [ blogspot.com ] might have told the poster , or even the editor , that 2 of Pixar 's next 3 movies are in fact new franchises.Sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick google search of Pixar's production schedule [blogspot.com] might have told the poster, or even the editor, that 2 of Pixar's next 3 movies are in fact new franchises.Sigh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273619</id>
	<title>TFA is...</title>
	<author>dr00g911</author>
	<datestamp>1244554380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both incorrect itself (or couldn't even be bothered with IMDB) <i>and</i> its assumptions are misquoted blogspam.</p><p>So, let's see, <i>confirmed</i> on Pixar's future agenda (as we know now);</p><p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0435761/" title="imdb.com">Toy Story 3 (2010)</a> [imdb.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401729/" title="imdb.com">John Carter of Mars (2012)</a> [imdb.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0832278/1906" title="imdb.com">1906</a> [imdb.com]</p><p>Plus speculation in Variety from several days ago about Monsters, Inc 2 possibly being Docter's next film that has suffered a little in the blogspam reporting (ie accuracy), resulting in the OMG SEQUALZ?!? meme we're soaking in today...</p><p>Also speculation: various rumored Mater spin-off movies from Cars. Yes, Larry the Cable Guy might get his own... vehicle (ouch). God help us all, but it'd be a goldmine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both incorrect itself ( or could n't even be bothered with IMDB ) and its assumptions are misquoted blogspam.So , let 's see , confirmed on Pixar 's future agenda ( as we know now ) ; Toy Story 3 ( 2010 ) [ imdb.com ] John Carter of Mars ( 2012 ) [ imdb.com ] 1906 [ imdb.com ] Plus speculation in Variety from several days ago about Monsters , Inc 2 possibly being Docter 's next film that has suffered a little in the blogspam reporting ( ie accuracy ) , resulting in the OMG SEQUALZ ? ! ?
meme we 're soaking in today...Also speculation : various rumored Mater spin-off movies from Cars .
Yes , Larry the Cable Guy might get his own... vehicle ( ouch ) .
God help us all , but it 'd be a goldmine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both incorrect itself (or couldn't even be bothered with IMDB) and its assumptions are misquoted blogspam.So, let's see, confirmed on Pixar's future agenda (as we know now);Toy Story 3 (2010) [imdb.com]John Carter of Mars (2012) [imdb.com]1906 [imdb.com]Plus speculation in Variety from several days ago about Monsters, Inc 2 possibly being Docter's next film that has suffered a little in the blogspam reporting (ie accuracy), resulting in the OMG SEQUALZ?!?
meme we're soaking in today...Also speculation: various rumored Mater spin-off movies from Cars.
Yes, Larry the Cable Guy might get his own... vehicle (ouch).
God help us all, but it'd be a goldmine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28280495</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1244652540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Further up in the thread it states as common knowledge that Disney prevented Pixar from doing sequels.  Disney only allows sequels as direct to video and Pixar wanted to do theatrical release.</p><p>Can you provide a citation for this "common knowledge?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Further up in the thread it states as common knowledge that Disney prevented Pixar from doing sequels .
Disney only allows sequels as direct to video and Pixar wanted to do theatrical release.Can you provide a citation for this " common knowledge ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further up in the thread it states as common knowledge that Disney prevented Pixar from doing sequels.
Disney only allows sequels as direct to video and Pixar wanted to do theatrical release.Can you provide a citation for this "common knowledge?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273455</id>
	<title>Sequels are not always bad</title>
	<author>bakes</author>
	<datestamp>1244553300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sequels are not necessarily bad.  Empire Strikes Back, anyone? Rocky 2 was a brilliant sequel (although they did go downhill after that) and more recently the Shrek 2 and 3 sequels have been, well, adequately good.  Toy Story 2 wasn't too bad, and I think there is capacity in some of the Pixar films to do good sequels.  I think it's only a problem if the driving force to do a sequel is because the original did well, whereas it should be because they have a decent story to tell.</p><p>As long as Pixar's people are doing the creative work, and Disney is only doing the promotion/distribution, I am hopeful that the quality will remain high.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sequels are not necessarily bad .
Empire Strikes Back , anyone ?
Rocky 2 was a brilliant sequel ( although they did go downhill after that ) and more recently the Shrek 2 and 3 sequels have been , well , adequately good .
Toy Story 2 was n't too bad , and I think there is capacity in some of the Pixar films to do good sequels .
I think it 's only a problem if the driving force to do a sequel is because the original did well , whereas it should be because they have a decent story to tell.As long as Pixar 's people are doing the creative work , and Disney is only doing the promotion/distribution , I am hopeful that the quality will remain high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sequels are not necessarily bad.
Empire Strikes Back, anyone?
Rocky 2 was a brilliant sequel (although they did go downhill after that) and more recently the Shrek 2 and 3 sequels have been, well, adequately good.
Toy Story 2 wasn't too bad, and I think there is capacity in some of the Pixar films to do good sequels.
I think it's only a problem if the driving force to do a sequel is because the original did well, whereas it should be because they have a decent story to tell.As long as Pixar's people are doing the creative work, and Disney is only doing the promotion/distribution, I am hopeful that the quality will remain high.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278527</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1244644020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Pixar's first three movies were Disney contracts for things they didn't write;</p></div></blockquote><p>What? A Bug's Life was written by Joe Ranft while he was at Pixar, Toy Story was written by John Lasseter, Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton, and Raft while they were all at Pixar, and three of the same four wrote Toy Story 2 while they were with Pixar.</p><p>The contract with Disney was a distribution contract, nothing more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pixar 's first three movies were Disney contracts for things they did n't write ; What ?
A Bug 's Life was written by Joe Ranft while he was at Pixar , Toy Story was written by John Lasseter , Pete Docter , Andrew Stanton , and Raft while they were all at Pixar , and three of the same four wrote Toy Story 2 while they were with Pixar.The contract with Disney was a distribution contract , nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pixar's first three movies were Disney contracts for things they didn't write;What?
A Bug's Life was written by Joe Ranft while he was at Pixar, Toy Story was written by John Lasseter, Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton, and Raft while they were all at Pixar, and three of the same four wrote Toy Story 2 while they were with Pixar.The contract with Disney was a distribution contract, nothing more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277177</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>Rakarra</author>
	<datestamp>1244631480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The vast bulk of Pixar's work is commercial in nature. None of their films are art films; they're all carefully concocted, demographically targetted Disney style family fun factory output.</p></div><p>Only if you use an especially snobby definition of "art."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast bulk of Pixar 's work is commercial in nature .
None of their films are art films ; they 're all carefully concocted , demographically targetted Disney style family fun factory output.Only if you use an especially snobby definition of " art .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast bulk of Pixar's work is commercial in nature.
None of their films are art films; they're all carefully concocted, demographically targetted Disney style family fun factory output.Only if you use an especially snobby definition of "art.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274919</id>
	<title>Sheesh.</title>
	<author>Viceroy Potatohead</author>
	<datestamp>1244565900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, you shouldn't be worried.<br> <br>
Just as the Ubuntocalypse (which occurs after the Zealous Zebra release) is a constant worry for us all, there are only about four unused Toy Story names, which would mean Debian will run out of names in 2138.  A third Toy Story movie should give us about five hundred more years of Debian release names. <br> <br>

By that time, the "Toy Story" branch of releases will enter "Testing", and "The Incredibles" branch of releases (based on dozens of movie sequels) will become the "Experimental" branch.  This should last until the heat death of the universe, at which point all Debian releases will be classified as "Stable".</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you should n't be worried .
Just as the Ubuntocalypse ( which occurs after the Zealous Zebra release ) is a constant worry for us all , there are only about four unused Toy Story names , which would mean Debian will run out of names in 2138 .
A third Toy Story movie should give us about five hundred more years of Debian release names .
By that time , the " Toy Story " branch of releases will enter " Testing " , and " The Incredibles " branch of releases ( based on dozens of movie sequels ) will become the " Experimental " branch .
This should last until the heat death of the universe , at which point all Debian releases will be classified as " Stable " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you shouldn't be worried.
Just as the Ubuntocalypse (which occurs after the Zealous Zebra release) is a constant worry for us all, there are only about four unused Toy Story names, which would mean Debian will run out of names in 2138.
A third Toy Story movie should give us about five hundred more years of Debian release names.
By that time, the "Toy Story" branch of releases will enter "Testing", and "The Incredibles" branch of releases (based on dozens of movie sequels) will become the "Experimental" branch.
This should last until the heat death of the universe, at which point all Debian releases will be classified as "Stable".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275019</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244566920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd argue over Hunchback.  OTOH, I'd not argue over the Lion King, which was 1994.  And let's face it, they've had dead periods before.  Like back in the 70s and 80s.  Even with the stinkers like The Black Cauldron, the Great Mouse Detective, they recovered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd argue over Hunchback .
OTOH , I 'd not argue over the Lion King , which was 1994 .
And let 's face it , they 've had dead periods before .
Like back in the 70s and 80s .
Even with the stinkers like The Black Cauldron , the Great Mouse Detective , they recovered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd argue over Hunchback.
OTOH, I'd not argue over the Lion King, which was 1994.
And let's face it, they've had dead periods before.
Like back in the 70s and 80s.
Even with the stinkers like The Black Cauldron, the Great Mouse Detective, they recovered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273791</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Macrat</author>
	<datestamp>1244555880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sequels don't <b>HAVE</b> to be bad. I think Pixar will do a good job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sequels do n't HAVE to be bad .
I think Pixar will do a good job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sequels don't HAVE to be bad.
I think Pixar will do a good job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274987</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1244566620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>and the new princess that all of the news outlets tittered over</i></p><p>I was thinking of this:</p><p><a href="http://www.duelinganalogs.com/comic/2009/06/08/the-fat-princess-diaries/" title="duelinganalogs.com">http://www.duelinganalogs.com/comic/2009/06/08/the-fat-princess-diaries/</a> [duelinganalogs.com]</p><p>Enjoy!  (p.s.  click the link at the bottom)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the new princess that all of the news outlets tittered overI was thinking of this : http : //www.duelinganalogs.com/comic/2009/06/08/the-fat-princess-diaries/ [ duelinganalogs.com ] Enjoy !
( p.s. click the link at the bottom )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the new princess that all of the news outlets tittered overI was thinking of this:http://www.duelinganalogs.com/comic/2009/06/08/the-fat-princess-diaries/ [duelinganalogs.com]Enjoy!
(p.s.  click the link at the bottom)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273379</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1244552640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You shouldn't worry.  Shut up and get a life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should n't worry .
Shut up and get a life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You shouldn't worry.
Shut up and get a life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273645</id>
	<title>fairly well insulated</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1244554680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I get the impression that they're fairly well insulated from Disney's pressure. I think Disney realizes that they were digging themselves into a big hole with their own crummy animated movies leading up to the time when they bought Pixar. "Wall-E" took a lot of commercial risks, with the long, no-dialog intro and the overt political satire. "Up" dismayed the marketing types by having almost no merchandising opportunities (want to buy action figures of an old guy or a chubby boy scout?). Basically they've been putting the story first, and it's actually been a real winning strategy for them in commercial terms. Making some sequels doesn't necessarily equate to being commercial sell-outs; it depends entirely on whether the sequels are <i>good</i>, which we have no way of knowing about right now.
</p><p>
I'd watch for the big pressure toward commercialism to happen if and when Pixar makes its first big box-office flop.
</p><p>
By the way, Pixar-style CG movies are kind of a unique and interesting example of a purely digital form of entertainment that absolutely can't exist without copyright laws. If copyright was abolished tomorrow, we'd still have garage bands, we'd still have (low-budget) movies, and we'd still have novels (which most novelists don't make enough profit from to live on anyway). But a CG movie is an art form that by its nature requires a very large budget. It's not the render farm, it's the incredible number of hours of labor that go into those movies.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get the impression that they 're fairly well insulated from Disney 's pressure .
I think Disney realizes that they were digging themselves into a big hole with their own crummy animated movies leading up to the time when they bought Pixar .
" Wall-E " took a lot of commercial risks , with the long , no-dialog intro and the overt political satire .
" Up " dismayed the marketing types by having almost no merchandising opportunities ( want to buy action figures of an old guy or a chubby boy scout ? ) .
Basically they 've been putting the story first , and it 's actually been a real winning strategy for them in commercial terms .
Making some sequels does n't necessarily equate to being commercial sell-outs ; it depends entirely on whether the sequels are good , which we have no way of knowing about right now .
I 'd watch for the big pressure toward commercialism to happen if and when Pixar makes its first big box-office flop .
By the way , Pixar-style CG movies are kind of a unique and interesting example of a purely digital form of entertainment that absolutely ca n't exist without copyright laws .
If copyright was abolished tomorrow , we 'd still have garage bands , we 'd still have ( low-budget ) movies , and we 'd still have novels ( which most novelists do n't make enough profit from to live on anyway ) .
But a CG movie is an art form that by its nature requires a very large budget .
It 's not the render farm , it 's the incredible number of hours of labor that go into those movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I get the impression that they're fairly well insulated from Disney's pressure.
I think Disney realizes that they were digging themselves into a big hole with their own crummy animated movies leading up to the time when they bought Pixar.
"Wall-E" took a lot of commercial risks, with the long, no-dialog intro and the overt political satire.
"Up" dismayed the marketing types by having almost no merchandising opportunities (want to buy action figures of an old guy or a chubby boy scout?).
Basically they've been putting the story first, and it's actually been a real winning strategy for them in commercial terms.
Making some sequels doesn't necessarily equate to being commercial sell-outs; it depends entirely on whether the sequels are good, which we have no way of knowing about right now.
I'd watch for the big pressure toward commercialism to happen if and when Pixar makes its first big box-office flop.
By the way, Pixar-style CG movies are kind of a unique and interesting example of a purely digital form of entertainment that absolutely can't exist without copyright laws.
If copyright was abolished tomorrow, we'd still have garage bands, we'd still have (low-budget) movies, and we'd still have novels (which most novelists don't make enough profit from to live on anyway).
But a CG movie is an art form that by its nature requires a very large budget.
It's not the render farm, it's the incredible number of hours of labor that go into those movies.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28279581</id>
	<title>Re:Who didn't see this coming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244648340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 3D. Now that is free money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 3D .
Now that is free money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 3D.
Now that is free money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274397</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>tirerim</author>
	<datestamp>1244561280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup.  Though that was admittedly a rare gem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
Though that was admittedly a rare gem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
Though that was admittedly a rare gem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274057</id>
	<title>The Sequal To "UP"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244558160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Down</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Down</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Down</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273897</id>
	<title>Blame Disney</title>
	<author>dFaust</author>
	<datestamp>1244556720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to remember seeing an interview with one of the big guys at Pixar years ago talking about how much they regretted doing Toy Story 2 and how they would never do another sequel like that again, etc., etc.

And so long as they were calling the shots, they didn't.

Being that Disney is calling the shots these days, this shouldn't be a big surprise and while I can't be 100\% I'm inclined to believe that's where the responsibility lies. The upshot is that Lasseter is now directly involved in non-Pixar Disney films as well. Take Bolt, for instance.  It was a new franchise that, while not up to Pixar standards, I felt was noticeably better than what we've (sadly) become accustomed to from Disney.

(full disclosure: Disney owns my soul)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember seeing an interview with one of the big guys at Pixar years ago talking about how much they regretted doing Toy Story 2 and how they would never do another sequel like that again , etc. , etc .
And so long as they were calling the shots , they did n't .
Being that Disney is calling the shots these days , this should n't be a big surprise and while I ca n't be 100 \ % I 'm inclined to believe that 's where the responsibility lies .
The upshot is that Lasseter is now directly involved in non-Pixar Disney films as well .
Take Bolt , for instance .
It was a new franchise that , while not up to Pixar standards , I felt was noticeably better than what we 've ( sadly ) become accustomed to from Disney .
( full disclosure : Disney owns my soul )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember seeing an interview with one of the big guys at Pixar years ago talking about how much they regretted doing Toy Story 2 and how they would never do another sequel like that again, etc., etc.
And so long as they were calling the shots, they didn't.
Being that Disney is calling the shots these days, this shouldn't be a big surprise and while I can't be 100\% I'm inclined to believe that's where the responsibility lies.
The upshot is that Lasseter is now directly involved in non-Pixar Disney films as well.
Take Bolt, for instance.
It was a new franchise that, while not up to Pixar standards, I felt was noticeably better than what we've (sadly) become accustomed to from Disney.
(full disclosure: Disney owns my soul)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274147</id>
	<title>Toy Story 1, 2, 3</title>
	<author>xbytor</author>
	<datestamp>1244559120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The next three releases are apparently Toy Story 1 &amp; 2 (in 3D) and 3.</p><p>That's more than enough for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The next three releases are apparently Toy Story 1 &amp; 2 ( in 3D ) and 3.That 's more than enough for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next three releases are apparently Toy Story 1 &amp; 2 (in 3D) and 3.That's more than enough for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274475</id>
	<title>The Disney Way</title>
	<author>sunfly</author>
	<datestamp>1244562000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought Pixar's culture was supposed to rub off on Disney.... not the other way around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Pixar 's culture was supposed to rub off on Disney.... not the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Pixar's culture was supposed to rub off on Disney.... not the other way around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278857</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1244645520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You didn't like The Emperor's New Groove? Have you seen it, it's fucking hilarious? I notice you also left Lilo and Stitch off your list, one of the best (easily in the top 5) animated movies of the last decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't like The Emperor 's New Groove ?
Have you seen it , it 's fucking hilarious ?
I notice you also left Lilo and Stitch off your list , one of the best ( easily in the top 5 ) animated movies of the last decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't like The Emperor's New Groove?
Have you seen it, it's fucking hilarious?
I notice you also left Lilo and Stitch off your list, one of the best (easily in the top 5) animated movies of the last decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273541</id>
	<title>"Commercial pressures"</title>
	<author>Petrushka</author>
	<datestamp>1244553720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are commercial pressures catching up with one of our most inventive movie companies?</p></div><p>No. Disney has caught up with them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are commercial pressures catching up with one of our most inventive movie companies ? No .
Disney has caught up with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are commercial pressures catching up with one of our most inventive movie companies?No.
Disney has caught up with them.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278393</id>
	<title>Re:TFA is...</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1244643300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>John Carter is not a Pixar film (although it is being directed by someone from Pixar). 1906 is live action, so while it's technically a Pixar film (I think), I don't know if regular Joes would consider it Pixar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>John Carter is not a Pixar film ( although it is being directed by someone from Pixar ) .
1906 is live action , so while it 's technically a Pixar film ( I think ) , I do n't know if regular Joes would consider it Pixar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John Carter is not a Pixar film (although it is being directed by someone from Pixar).
1906 is live action, so while it's technically a Pixar film (I think), I don't know if regular Joes would consider it Pixar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28279851</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>the phantom</author>
	<datestamp>1244649420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lion King was Hamlet, whether or not they stole the character design and name from Japan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lion King was Hamlet , whether or not they stole the character design and name from Japan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lion King was Hamlet, whether or not they stole the character design and name from Japan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274207</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1244559720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)? I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.</p></div><p>Lilo and Stich?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go ahead , what was the last good original animated Disney movie ( not counting those made by Pixar ) ?
I do n't know , but I 'm estimating something like 20 years ago.Lilo and Stich ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)?
I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.Lilo and Stich?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274039</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1244557920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well the larger problem here is what the sequels indicate: Disney is getting its way</p></div><p>Well, they do <em>own</em> them after all... All of the original Pixar principals have made millions over the sale to DIS, and have been handsome rewarded for the operation up thru <em>Incredibles</em>.  It's up to Disney to make the operation work after this point.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years. [...] It's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney can't think of or even appreciate new ideas.</p></div><p>I would say it's common knowledge that Disney has been turning out product that most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers would consider utter dreck but make just gobs of money in the market, selling happy, safe entertainment to parents who want something for their tweens that won't bore them -- face it, <em>Up</em> is a superb movie but it does miss the "worry-free entertainment" mark.</p><p>FD. I've worked on several Disney films and was the sound co-supervisor of <em>High School Musical 3</em>, so I'm a bit sensitive to the whole "dreck" business...  But we good, we good!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the larger problem here is what the sequels indicate : Disney is getting its wayWell , they do own them after all... All of the original Pixar principals have made millions over the sale to DIS , and have been handsome rewarded for the operation up thru Incredibles .
It 's up to Disney to make the operation work after this point.Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years .
[ ... ] It 's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney ca n't think of or even appreciate new ideas.I would say it 's common knowledge that Disney has been turning out product that most /.ers would consider utter dreck but make just gobs of money in the market , selling happy , safe entertainment to parents who want something for their tweens that wo n't bore them -- face it , Up is a superb movie but it does miss the " worry-free entertainment " mark.FD .
I 've worked on several Disney films and was the sound co-supervisor of High School Musical 3 , so I 'm a bit sensitive to the whole " dreck " business... But we good , we good !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the larger problem here is what the sequels indicate: Disney is getting its wayWell, they do own them after all... All of the original Pixar principals have made millions over the sale to DIS, and have been handsome rewarded for the operation up thru Incredibles.
It's up to Disney to make the operation work after this point.Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years.
[...] It's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney can't think of or even appreciate new ideas.I would say it's common knowledge that Disney has been turning out product that most /.ers would consider utter dreck but make just gobs of money in the market, selling happy, safe entertainment to parents who want something for their tweens that won't bore them -- face it, Up is a superb movie but it does miss the "worry-free entertainment" mark.FD.
I've worked on several Disney films and was the sound co-supervisor of High School Musical 3, so I'm a bit sensitive to the whole "dreck" business...  But we good, we good!
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1244554920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well the larger problem here is what the sequels indicate: Disney is getting its way.
</p><p>Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years.  Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)?  I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.  It's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney can't think of or even appreciate new ideas.  The big question a few years back was, "When Disney buys Pixar, will Pixar be able to maintain their independence, or will Disney's 'creative' minds start steering the ship?"
</p><p>I don't know if we really have a complete and definitive answer, since Pixar may have enough talent to make these sequels good.  What's more it might be that these sequels are a blip, and after them we'll get a rash of original characters and story-lines.  On the other hand, this doesn't seem like a good sign.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the larger problem here is what the sequels indicate : Disney is getting its way .
Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years .
Go ahead , what was the last good original animated Disney movie ( not counting those made by Pixar ) ?
I do n't know , but I 'm estimating something like 20 years ago .
It 's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney ca n't think of or even appreciate new ideas .
The big question a few years back was , " When Disney buys Pixar , will Pixar be able to maintain their independence , or will Disney 's 'creative ' minds start steering the ship ?
" I do n't know if we really have a complete and definitive answer , since Pixar may have enough talent to make these sequels good .
What 's more it might be that these sequels are a blip , and after them we 'll get a rash of original characters and story-lines .
On the other hand , this does n't seem like a good sign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the larger problem here is what the sequels indicate: Disney is getting its way.
Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years.
Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)?
I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.
It's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney can't think of or even appreciate new ideas.
The big question a few years back was, "When Disney buys Pixar, will Pixar be able to maintain their independence, or will Disney's 'creative' minds start steering the ship?
"
I don't know if we really have a complete and definitive answer, since Pixar may have enough talent to make these sequels good.
What's more it might be that these sequels are a blip, and after them we'll get a rash of original characters and story-lines.
On the other hand, this doesn't seem like a good sign.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276893</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Rakarra</author>
	<datestamp>1244628360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>until Toy Story 2, they never released a theatrical sequel.</p></div><p>Quick correction: The Rescuers Down Under (1990) was a theatrical release. Otherwise, I wish I could mod your post to 1000.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>until Toy Story 2 , they never released a theatrical sequel.Quick correction : The Rescuers Down Under ( 1990 ) was a theatrical release .
Otherwise , I wish I could mod your post to 1000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>until Toy Story 2, they never released a theatrical sequel.Quick correction: The Rescuers Down Under (1990) was a theatrical release.
Otherwise, I wish I could mod your post to 1000.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277151</id>
	<title>Re:TFA is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244631180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>John Carter of Mars and 1906 are not Pixar productions, they're live-action movies directed by Pixar directors.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also speculation: various rumored Mater spin-off movies from Cars.</p></div><p>Those have already been released. They're just not feature length, they're shorts, and they're called the Cars Toons. They tend to air on the Disney Channel, they might have been online as well. Tokyo Mater was already shown, I think a few others are coming.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>John Carter of Mars and 1906 are not Pixar productions , they 're live-action movies directed by Pixar directors.Also speculation : various rumored Mater spin-off movies from Cars.Those have already been released .
They 're just not feature length , they 're shorts , and they 're called the Cars Toons .
They tend to air on the Disney Channel , they might have been online as well .
Tokyo Mater was already shown , I think a few others are coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John Carter of Mars and 1906 are not Pixar productions, they're live-action movies directed by Pixar directors.Also speculation: various rumored Mater spin-off movies from Cars.Those have already been released.
They're just not feature length, they're shorts, and they're called the Cars Toons.
They tend to air on the Disney Channel, they might have been online as well.
Tokyo Mater was already shown, I think a few others are coming.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273921</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>stonecypher</author>
	<datestamp>1244556900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pixar's first twenty seven paying jobs were commercials; the only two you remember are the packs of life savers doing a conga line and the listerine bottle Tarzanning around to Hooked on a Feeling.</p><p>Pixar's first three movies were Disney contracts for things they didn't write; one of them is a sequel, Toy Story 2 (to their Toy Story 1, with A Bug's Life inbetween).</p><p>Of their next three films, only two are sequels; they are Toy Story 3 and Cars 2.  The story linked thinks that Monsters Inc. 2 is among the next three; it is not.  It will be preceded by The Bear And The Bow, as well as by Newt.</p><p>Indeed, more worrying than that they're sequels is that one of the three isn't in-house written; that's Toy Story 3, and we all know what a pile TS2 was.</p><p>The vast bulk of Pixar's work is commercial in nature.  None of their films are art films; they're all carefully concocted, demographically targetted Disney style family fun factory output.</p><p>Can't imagine why anyone would think that Pixar is just now becoming money oriented.  You don't shell out for Tom Hanks as a cartoon voice actor if you're not looking for wallet padding; they hired him for his name, not the quality of his work (he's a fine actor, but doesn't have nearly the range of some of the well established voice actors out there, the same of which can be said for most of Pixar's other voice staff.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pixar 's first twenty seven paying jobs were commercials ; the only two you remember are the packs of life savers doing a conga line and the listerine bottle Tarzanning around to Hooked on a Feeling.Pixar 's first three movies were Disney contracts for things they did n't write ; one of them is a sequel , Toy Story 2 ( to their Toy Story 1 , with A Bug 's Life inbetween ) .Of their next three films , only two are sequels ; they are Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 .
The story linked thinks that Monsters Inc. 2 is among the next three ; it is not .
It will be preceded by The Bear And The Bow , as well as by Newt.Indeed , more worrying than that they 're sequels is that one of the three is n't in-house written ; that 's Toy Story 3 , and we all know what a pile TS2 was.The vast bulk of Pixar 's work is commercial in nature .
None of their films are art films ; they 're all carefully concocted , demographically targetted Disney style family fun factory output.Ca n't imagine why anyone would think that Pixar is just now becoming money oriented .
You do n't shell out for Tom Hanks as a cartoon voice actor if you 're not looking for wallet padding ; they hired him for his name , not the quality of his work ( he 's a fine actor , but does n't have nearly the range of some of the well established voice actors out there , the same of which can be said for most of Pixar 's other voice staff .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pixar's first twenty seven paying jobs were commercials; the only two you remember are the packs of life savers doing a conga line and the listerine bottle Tarzanning around to Hooked on a Feeling.Pixar's first three movies were Disney contracts for things they didn't write; one of them is a sequel, Toy Story 2 (to their Toy Story 1, with A Bug's Life inbetween).Of their next three films, only two are sequels; they are Toy Story 3 and Cars 2.
The story linked thinks that Monsters Inc. 2 is among the next three; it is not.
It will be preceded by The Bear And The Bow, as well as by Newt.Indeed, more worrying than that they're sequels is that one of the three isn't in-house written; that's Toy Story 3, and we all know what a pile TS2 was.The vast bulk of Pixar's work is commercial in nature.
None of their films are art films; they're all carefully concocted, demographically targetted Disney style family fun factory output.Can't imagine why anyone would think that Pixar is just now becoming money oriented.
You don't shell out for Tom Hanks as a cartoon voice actor if you're not looking for wallet padding; they hired him for his name, not the quality of his work (he's a fine actor, but doesn't have nearly the range of some of the well established voice actors out there, the same of which can be said for most of Pixar's other voice staff.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273443</id>
	<title>Bullshit</title>
	<author>piojo</author>
	<datestamp>1244553120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The next three films are likely to be sequels? The article doesn't even make that claim. The person who wrote the summary likely thinks tha Pixar just "pops out" these films. In fact, they usually take about 4 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The next three films are likely to be sequels ?
The article does n't even make that claim .
The person who wrote the summary likely thinks tha Pixar just " pops out " these films .
In fact , they usually take about 4 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next three films are likely to be sequels?
The article doesn't even make that claim.
The person who wrote the summary likely thinks tha Pixar just "pops out" these films.
In fact, they usually take about 4 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274671</id>
	<title>Re:fairly well insulated</title>
	<author>shawb</author>
	<datestamp>1244563740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.upvideogame.com/#/ushttp://www.upvideogame.com/\%23/us" title="upvideogame.com">No merchandising opportunities?</a> [upvideogame.com]  Okay, it doesn't have the traditional merchandising opportunities... but potentially lucrative.  From what I've heard about the movie, this could actually translate well into a video game... granted, I don't know what Disney/Pixar's skills are in this territory, but...</htmltext>
<tokenext>No merchandising opportunities ?
[ upvideogame.com ] Okay , it does n't have the traditional merchandising opportunities... but potentially lucrative .
From what I 've heard about the movie , this could actually translate well into a video game... granted , I do n't know what Disney/Pixar 's skills are in this territory , but.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No merchandising opportunities?
[upvideogame.com]  Okay, it doesn't have the traditional merchandising opportunities... but potentially lucrative.
From what I've heard about the movie, this could actually translate well into a video game... granted, I don't know what Disney/Pixar's skills are in this territory, but...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273701</id>
	<title>Wrath Of Khan ring a bell?</title>
	<author>UttBuggly</author>
	<datestamp>1244555160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm OK with sequels as some do indeed surpass the original.</p><p>And while I don't love every Pixar movie, their worst effort is still much better than everyone else. I will admit that Kung Fu Panda was a pleasant surprise from DreamWorks, but I trust them less with the sequel.</p><p>Monsters, Inc. is my 2nd favorite Pixar film behind The Incredibles, so I'm jazzed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm OK with sequels as some do indeed surpass the original.And while I do n't love every Pixar movie , their worst effort is still much better than everyone else .
I will admit that Kung Fu Panda was a pleasant surprise from DreamWorks , but I trust them less with the sequel.Monsters , Inc. is my 2nd favorite Pixar film behind The Incredibles , so I 'm jazzed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm OK with sequels as some do indeed surpass the original.And while I don't love every Pixar movie, their worst effort is still much better than everyone else.
I will admit that Kung Fu Panda was a pleasant surprise from DreamWorks, but I trust them less with the sequel.Monsters, Inc. is my 2nd favorite Pixar film behind The Incredibles, so I'm jazzed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274883</id>
	<title>The Revenge of Disneytoons</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1244565600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Disney used to have an official "crap sequels division", called "Disneytoons". Disneytoons was responsible for Sleeping Beauty 2, Mulan 2, Jungle Book 2, etc., direct-to DVD efforts designed to wring the last dollar out of each franchise. When Disney bought Pixar, Disneytoons was shut down. This was just as well.  Sequels from Disneytoons were far, far worse than the originals.
</p><p>
It looks like Pixar is being given Disneytoons' job.  "Cars 2" is being made because about $5 billion in "Cars" merchandise has been sold, and with another Cars movie, another few million tons of injection-molded plastic can be shipped out.  There's no other reason for another "Cars" movie; the story was complete in itself.
</p><p>
Apparently they're not doing another "Incredibles" movie. That concept has more franchise potential than "Cars".  But it wouldn't move the injection-molded plastic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney used to have an official " crap sequels division " , called " Disneytoons " .
Disneytoons was responsible for Sleeping Beauty 2 , Mulan 2 , Jungle Book 2 , etc. , direct-to DVD efforts designed to wring the last dollar out of each franchise .
When Disney bought Pixar , Disneytoons was shut down .
This was just as well .
Sequels from Disneytoons were far , far worse than the originals .
It looks like Pixar is being given Disneytoons ' job .
" Cars 2 " is being made because about $ 5 billion in " Cars " merchandise has been sold , and with another Cars movie , another few million tons of injection-molded plastic can be shipped out .
There 's no other reason for another " Cars " movie ; the story was complete in itself .
Apparently they 're not doing another " Incredibles " movie .
That concept has more franchise potential than " Cars " .
But it would n't move the injection-molded plastic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Disney used to have an official "crap sequels division", called "Disneytoons".
Disneytoons was responsible for Sleeping Beauty 2, Mulan 2, Jungle Book 2, etc., direct-to DVD efforts designed to wring the last dollar out of each franchise.
When Disney bought Pixar, Disneytoons was shut down.
This was just as well.
Sequels from Disneytoons were far, far worse than the originals.
It looks like Pixar is being given Disneytoons' job.
"Cars 2" is being made because about $5 billion in "Cars" merchandise has been sold, and with another Cars movie, another few million tons of injection-molded plastic can be shipped out.
There's no other reason for another "Cars" movie; the story was complete in itself.
Apparently they're not doing another "Incredibles" movie.
That concept has more franchise potential than "Cars".
But it wouldn't move the injection-molded plastic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273597</id>
	<title>the next three, if you skip one</title>
	<author>geoff2</author>
	<datestamp>1244554200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the next three Pixar films will be sequels, if you ignore Newt, which is the next movie after Toy Story 3 and is coming out in 2011. and the Bear and the Bow, which is coming out Christmas 2011. Other than that, the original post is exactly correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the next three Pixar films will be sequels , if you ignore Newt , which is the next movie after Toy Story 3 and is coming out in 2011. and the Bear and the Bow , which is coming out Christmas 2011 .
Other than that , the original post is exactly correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the next three Pixar films will be sequels, if you ignore Newt, which is the next movie after Toy Story 3 and is coming out in 2011. and the Bear and the Bow, which is coming out Christmas 2011.
Other than that, the original post is exactly correct.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28281085</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Disney</title>
	<author>TPJ-Basin</author>
	<datestamp>1244654760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disney *is* calling the shots these days, but do you know who the Chief Creative Officer of both Pixar *and* Disney Animation is?

John Lasseter.

So do you really think the founder of Pixar is going to <b>force</b> crap out of the company he helped start??</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney * is * calling the shots these days , but do you know who the Chief Creative Officer of both Pixar * and * Disney Animation is ?
John Lasseter .
So do you really think the founder of Pixar is going to force crap out of the company he helped start ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney *is* calling the shots these days, but do you know who the Chief Creative Officer of both Pixar *and* Disney Animation is?
John Lasseter.
So do you really think the founder of Pixar is going to force crap out of the company he helped start?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274573</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244562780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cinderella - originally released by Disney in 1950... this is a re-make, not even a sequel.<br>
Anastasia - 20th Century Fox, not Disney.<br>
The Lion King - released in 1994... 15 years ago.  GP's phrase "I'm estimating 20 years ago" is close enough.<br>
Alladin - released in 1992... 17 years is even closer to GP's guestimate.<br> <br>

I might have given you credit if you had mentioned Lilo &amp; Stitch (2002.) I recall hearing buzz at the time saying that Lilo &amp; Stitch was an example of Disney actually taking lessons from Pixar and Disney would resume making captivating, original stories that actually have a plot and reasons to get engaged with the characters.  That didn't last very long...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cinderella - originally released by Disney in 1950... this is a re-make , not even a sequel .
Anastasia - 20th Century Fox , not Disney .
The Lion King - released in 1994... 15 years ago .
GP 's phrase " I 'm estimating 20 years ago " is close enough .
Alladin - released in 1992... 17 years is even closer to GP 's guestimate .
I might have given you credit if you had mentioned Lilo &amp; Stitch ( 2002 .
) I recall hearing buzz at the time saying that Lilo &amp; Stitch was an example of Disney actually taking lessons from Pixar and Disney would resume making captivating , original stories that actually have a plot and reasons to get engaged with the characters .
That did n't last very long.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cinderella - originally released by Disney in 1950... this is a re-make, not even a sequel.
Anastasia - 20th Century Fox, not Disney.
The Lion King - released in 1994... 15 years ago.
GP's phrase "I'm estimating 20 years ago" is close enough.
Alladin - released in 1992... 17 years is even closer to GP's guestimate.
I might have given you credit if you had mentioned Lilo &amp; Stitch (2002.
) I recall hearing buzz at the time saying that Lilo &amp; Stitch was an example of Disney actually taking lessons from Pixar and Disney would resume making captivating, original stories that actually have a plot and reasons to get engaged with the characters.
That didn't last very long...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276077</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>BTWR</author>
	<datestamp>1244576040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>But lately it seems like Pixar is making movies to impress themselves while forgetting who their audience is.</i> <br> <br>Brad Bird says he doesn't make "cartoons."  He makes motion pictures that just happen to be animated.  My 4 year-old neice hated the first 30 minutes of Wall-E because it had no talking or singing or dancing (Hello Dolly clips not counting).  But the adults - they loved it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But lately it seems like Pixar is making movies to impress themselves while forgetting who their audience is .
Brad Bird says he does n't make " cartoons .
" He makes motion pictures that just happen to be animated .
My 4 year-old neice hated the first 30 minutes of Wall-E because it had no talking or singing or dancing ( Hello Dolly clips not counting ) .
But the adults - they loved it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But lately it seems like Pixar is making movies to impress themselves while forgetting who their audience is.
Brad Bird says he doesn't make "cartoons.
"  He makes motion pictures that just happen to be animated.
My 4 year-old neice hated the first 30 minutes of Wall-E because it had no talking or singing or dancing (Hello Dolly clips not counting).
But the adults - they loved it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274637</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1244563440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who is to say they haven't been working on it for 3 years already? They don't tell you what they are working on, only when it is ready to go out do you learn anything about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is to say they have n't been working on it for 3 years already ?
They do n't tell you what they are working on , only when it is ready to go out do you learn anything about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is to say they haven't been working on it for 3 years already?
They don't tell you what they are working on, only when it is ready to go out do you learn anything about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275721</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>sdhoigt</author>
	<datestamp>1244572440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Now if John Lasseter leaves, then we might be able to talk about Pixar going downhill.</p><p>You spelled <b>Brad Bird</b> wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Now if John Lasseter leaves , then we might be able to talk about Pixar going downhill.You spelled Brad Bird wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Now if John Lasseter leaves, then we might be able to talk about Pixar going downhill.You spelled Brad Bird wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274361</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>vovin</author>
	<datestamp>1244560980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lilo and Stich?</p></div><p>Heck yeah. This was a really good one.<br>Too bad the sequels/series were done to such a low standard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lilo and Stich ? Heck yeah .
This was a really good one.Too bad the sequels/series were done to such a low standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lilo and Stich?Heck yeah.
This was a really good one.Too bad the sequels/series were done to such a low standard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439</id>
	<title>Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>lyinhart</author>
	<datestamp>1244553060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assuming Pixar's "competition" will continue to be such "gems" as <i>Madagascar 2</i>, <i>Ice Age 2</i> or whatever <i>Shrek</i> sequel is coming down the pipeline, there's nothing to worry about. Now if John Lasseter leaves, <b>then</b> we might be able to talk about Pixar going downhill.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming Pixar 's " competition " will continue to be such " gems " as Madagascar 2 , Ice Age 2 or whatever Shrek sequel is coming down the pipeline , there 's nothing to worry about .
Now if John Lasseter leaves , then we might be able to talk about Pixar going downhill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming Pixar's "competition" will continue to be such "gems" as Madagascar 2, Ice Age 2 or whatever Shrek sequel is coming down the pipeline, there's nothing to worry about.
Now if John Lasseter leaves, then we might be able to talk about Pixar going downhill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275523</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Snowspinner</author>
	<datestamp>1244570880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, by most accounts Disney has improved over the last year or two. Yes, the era where Home on the Range and Brother Bear were coming out was a bit of a trainwreck. But their most recent animated film, Bolt, did appreciable business and was generally well received. And the buzz they're getting for The Princess and the Frog, their return to traditional animation, is significant. Rapunzel is also getting generally good buzz.</p><p>The general sense seems to be that Disney bought Pixar in a large part to get John Lasseter to work on all of their films. And that he's been turning the ship around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , by most accounts Disney has improved over the last year or two .
Yes , the era where Home on the Range and Brother Bear were coming out was a bit of a trainwreck .
But their most recent animated film , Bolt , did appreciable business and was generally well received .
And the buzz they 're getting for The Princess and the Frog , their return to traditional animation , is significant .
Rapunzel is also getting generally good buzz.The general sense seems to be that Disney bought Pixar in a large part to get John Lasseter to work on all of their films .
And that he 's been turning the ship around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, by most accounts Disney has improved over the last year or two.
Yes, the era where Home on the Range and Brother Bear were coming out was a bit of a trainwreck.
But their most recent animated film, Bolt, did appreciable business and was generally well received.
And the buzz they're getting for The Princess and the Frog, their return to traditional animation, is significant.
Rapunzel is also getting generally good buzz.The general sense seems to be that Disney bought Pixar in a large part to get John Lasseter to work on all of their films.
And that he's been turning the ship around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273957</id>
	<title>These are sequels that people actually want</title>
	<author>leamanc</author>
	<datestamp>1244557140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Steve Jobs sold Pixar to Disney (and became Disney's largest shareholder in the process), he said (paraphrasing here) that Disney should stop pissing on its legacy and cranking out direct-to-DVD sequels of decades-old classics.  Believe me, he is not a fan of sequels just as a cash-grab.</p><p>But, these planned Pixar sequels are films that people <b>actually want to see</b>.  They have been demanding them.  I'm surprised to not see an Incredibles sequel on the list, because there are a lot of folks that want that one too.</p><p>I am not disappointed by this news.  All of these will be great movies.  I wish they could squeeze in some original flicks among the sequels, but I'm not worried about it.  They are giving the fans what they want, and will blow us away with the next original Pixar movie when it comes out.</p><p>BTW, Up was great; better than Ratatouille and WALL-E, in my opinion.  Mad props to Pixar for giving a great actor like Ed Asner a starring role in a high-budget blockbuster film at the age of 76.  The man's earned the right to rake in some serious royalty cash for himself and his heirs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Steve Jobs sold Pixar to Disney ( and became Disney 's largest shareholder in the process ) , he said ( paraphrasing here ) that Disney should stop pissing on its legacy and cranking out direct-to-DVD sequels of decades-old classics .
Believe me , he is not a fan of sequels just as a cash-grab.But , these planned Pixar sequels are films that people actually want to see .
They have been demanding them .
I 'm surprised to not see an Incredibles sequel on the list , because there are a lot of folks that want that one too.I am not disappointed by this news .
All of these will be great movies .
I wish they could squeeze in some original flicks among the sequels , but I 'm not worried about it .
They are giving the fans what they want , and will blow us away with the next original Pixar movie when it comes out.BTW , Up was great ; better than Ratatouille and WALL-E , in my opinion .
Mad props to Pixar for giving a great actor like Ed Asner a starring role in a high-budget blockbuster film at the age of 76 .
The man 's earned the right to rake in some serious royalty cash for himself and his heirs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Steve Jobs sold Pixar to Disney (and became Disney's largest shareholder in the process), he said (paraphrasing here) that Disney should stop pissing on its legacy and cranking out direct-to-DVD sequels of decades-old classics.
Believe me, he is not a fan of sequels just as a cash-grab.But, these planned Pixar sequels are films that people actually want to see.
They have been demanding them.
I'm surprised to not see an Incredibles sequel on the list, because there are a lot of folks that want that one too.I am not disappointed by this news.
All of these will be great movies.
I wish they could squeeze in some original flicks among the sequels, but I'm not worried about it.
They are giving the fans what they want, and will blow us away with the next original Pixar movie when it comes out.BTW, Up was great; better than Ratatouille and WALL-E, in my opinion.
Mad props to Pixar for giving a great actor like Ed Asner a starring role in a high-budget blockbuster film at the age of 76.
The man's earned the right to rake in some serious royalty cash for himself and his heirs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278797</id>
	<title>Monsters, Inc is a tough act to follow</title>
	<author>kriston</author>
	<datestamp>1244645280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my humble opinion the movie Monsters, Inc., was the very best computer-created cartoon movie ever made.  The script, plot elements, and awe-inspiring computer graphics, especially the extended door warehouse scene, are a a really tough act to follow.</p><p>The sequel will probably have a colon in its name, too.  Sigh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my humble opinion the movie Monsters , Inc. , was the very best computer-created cartoon movie ever made .
The script , plot elements , and awe-inspiring computer graphics , especially the extended door warehouse scene , are a a really tough act to follow.The sequel will probably have a colon in its name , too .
Sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my humble opinion the movie Monsters, Inc., was the very best computer-created cartoon movie ever made.
The script, plot elements, and awe-inspiring computer graphics, especially the extended door warehouse scene, are a a really tough act to follow.The sequel will probably have a colon in its name, too.
Sigh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273713</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1244555220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The person who wrote the summary likely thinks tha Pixar just "pops out" these films. In fact, they usually take about 4 years.</i> </p><p>The interesting thing here is that Disney's classic animated features were just as long in production.</p><p>The wonderous new tech hasn't really changed things all that much.</p><p>There is a lesson in that for that for the geek who thinks that the free tool - or the sophisticated tool - makes every man an artist, a significant creative talent.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The person who wrote the summary likely thinks tha Pixar just " pops out " these films .
In fact , they usually take about 4 years .
The interesting thing here is that Disney 's classic animated features were just as long in production.The wonderous new tech has n't really changed things all that much.There is a lesson in that for that for the geek who thinks that the free tool - or the sophisticated tool - makes every man an artist , a significant creative talent .
       </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The person who wrote the summary likely thinks tha Pixar just "pops out" these films.
In fact, they usually take about 4 years.
The interesting thing here is that Disney's classic animated features were just as long in production.The wonderous new tech hasn't really changed things all that much.There is a lesson in that for that for the geek who thinks that the free tool - or the sophisticated tool - makes every man an artist, a significant creative talent.
       </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275031</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1244566980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, I'll give people Lilo and Stich, but Mulan, Tarzan, and Hunchback weren't good.  They were heavy attempts to replay the same old formula that had gone stale.  Oh, and they're trying to release yet another movie in the same exact formula, but with a non-white princess?  Wow, those are some real creative folk over there, aren't they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I 'll give people Lilo and Stich , but Mulan , Tarzan , and Hunchback were n't good .
They were heavy attempts to replay the same old formula that had gone stale .
Oh , and they 're trying to release yet another movie in the same exact formula , but with a non-white princess ?
Wow , those are some real creative folk over there , are n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I'll give people Lilo and Stich, but Mulan, Tarzan, and Hunchback weren't good.
They were heavy attempts to replay the same old formula that had gone stale.
Oh, and they're trying to release yet another movie in the same exact formula, but with a non-white princess?
Wow, those are some real creative folk over there, aren't they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275327</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>GodBlessTexas</author>
	<datestamp>1244569440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Well the larger problem here is what the sequels indicate: Disney is getting its way.</b> <br> <br>

Bullshit.  Disney already owned all the rights to all the Pixar characters as part of their distribution deals, and already had a Toy Story 3 in the works.  When Pixar joined the Disney fold and John Lasseter became Chief Creative Officer reporting directly to Iger and Roy Disney, and Ed Catmull became President of Pixar Animation and Walt Disney Animation Studios, the first thing Lasseter and Catmull did was kill Toy Story 3 and put all in process productions on hold until they could be reviewed.  All Disney productions were stopped until Lasseter and Catmull could review them and approve viable projects, with Meet the Robinsons being the only one that survived after they consulted with the director and the story was drastically changed to be much more personal and reflect director Stephen J Anderson's own story of being an adopted child.  The biggest problem with Disney features was Michael "going back to the well for the 11th billion time" Eisner, and the screwed up structure they had Roy Disney relegated to since his direct report also reported to Eisner.  Things got better after he was out of the picture.<br> <br>

<b>Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years. Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)? I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.</b> <br> <br>

Let's see...  While these were not successful movies at the box office, they were good and suffered more from the decline of Disney Animation's reputation at the hands of Eisner than their own merits.<br>
The Emperor's New Groove (2000)<br>
Lilo and Stitch (2002)<br>
Meet the Robinsons (2007 and has the John Lasseter seal of approval, and overall favorable ratings)<br> <br>

<b>It's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney can't think of or even appreciate new ideas. The big question a few years back was, "When Disney buys Pixar, will Pixar be able to maintain their independence, or will Disney's 'creative' minds start steering the ship?"</b> <br> <br>

Pixar's creative team are steering the ship!  The only people over them is Bob Iger and the board of directors where Steve Jobs holds a majority stake and Roy Disney is a huge Pixar fan.  Why do you think Catmull and Lasseter both report directly to Bob Iger?  Furthermore, Disney has never put stock in sequels.  Sure, they've churned them out on direct-to-DVD releases, but until Toy Story 2, they never released a theatrical sequel.  Pixar, however, is batting 1.000 with sequels, and NOTHING so far indicates they will fail that.<br> <br>

<b>I don't know if we really have a complete and definitive answer, since Pixar may have enough talent to make these sequels good. What's more it might be that these sequels are a blip, and after them we'll get a rash of original characters and story-lines. On the other hand, this doesn't seem like a good sign.</b> <br> <br>

When has Pixar ever disappointed?  Their worst works are better than just about anything any other animation house has put out.  Even their shorts are exceptional!  As long as Lasseter and Catmull are running things, I have absolute faith that if they do create sequels, they will be stories worth telling.  Because to those guys, along with Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, and Brad Bird, the story IS what is important, and has always come first.  Now, bring us a Lasseter/Pixar classic Disney character film!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the larger problem here is what the sequels indicate : Disney is getting its way .
Bullshit. Disney already owned all the rights to all the Pixar characters as part of their distribution deals , and already had a Toy Story 3 in the works .
When Pixar joined the Disney fold and John Lasseter became Chief Creative Officer reporting directly to Iger and Roy Disney , and Ed Catmull became President of Pixar Animation and Walt Disney Animation Studios , the first thing Lasseter and Catmull did was kill Toy Story 3 and put all in process productions on hold until they could be reviewed .
All Disney productions were stopped until Lasseter and Catmull could review them and approve viable projects , with Meet the Robinsons being the only one that survived after they consulted with the director and the story was drastically changed to be much more personal and reflect director Stephen J Anderson 's own story of being an adopted child .
The biggest problem with Disney features was Michael " going back to the well for the 11th billion time " Eisner , and the screwed up structure they had Roy Disney relegated to since his direct report also reported to Eisner .
Things got better after he was out of the picture .
Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years .
Go ahead , what was the last good original animated Disney movie ( not counting those made by Pixar ) ?
I do n't know , but I 'm estimating something like 20 years ago .
Let 's see... While these were not successful movies at the box office , they were good and suffered more from the decline of Disney Animation 's reputation at the hands of Eisner than their own merits .
The Emperor 's New Groove ( 2000 ) Lilo and Stitch ( 2002 ) Meet the Robinsons ( 2007 and has the John Lasseter seal of approval , and overall favorable ratings ) It 's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney ca n't think of or even appreciate new ideas .
The big question a few years back was , " When Disney buys Pixar , will Pixar be able to maintain their independence , or will Disney 's 'creative ' minds start steering the ship ?
" Pixar 's creative team are steering the ship !
The only people over them is Bob Iger and the board of directors where Steve Jobs holds a majority stake and Roy Disney is a huge Pixar fan .
Why do you think Catmull and Lasseter both report directly to Bob Iger ?
Furthermore , Disney has never put stock in sequels .
Sure , they 've churned them out on direct-to-DVD releases , but until Toy Story 2 , they never released a theatrical sequel .
Pixar , however , is batting 1.000 with sequels , and NOTHING so far indicates they will fail that .
I do n't know if we really have a complete and definitive answer , since Pixar may have enough talent to make these sequels good .
What 's more it might be that these sequels are a blip , and after them we 'll get a rash of original characters and story-lines .
On the other hand , this does n't seem like a good sign .
When has Pixar ever disappointed ?
Their worst works are better than just about anything any other animation house has put out .
Even their shorts are exceptional !
As long as Lasseter and Catmull are running things , I have absolute faith that if they do create sequels , they will be stories worth telling .
Because to those guys , along with Andrew Stanton , Pete Docter , and Brad Bird , the story IS what is important , and has always come first .
Now , bring us a Lasseter/Pixar classic Disney character film !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the larger problem here is what the sequels indicate: Disney is getting its way.
Bullshit.  Disney already owned all the rights to all the Pixar characters as part of their distribution deals, and already had a Toy Story 3 in the works.
When Pixar joined the Disney fold and John Lasseter became Chief Creative Officer reporting directly to Iger and Roy Disney, and Ed Catmull became President of Pixar Animation and Walt Disney Animation Studios, the first thing Lasseter and Catmull did was kill Toy Story 3 and put all in process productions on hold until they could be reviewed.
All Disney productions were stopped until Lasseter and Catmull could review them and approve viable projects, with Meet the Robinsons being the only one that survived after they consulted with the director and the story was drastically changed to be much more personal and reflect director Stephen J Anderson's own story of being an adopted child.
The biggest problem with Disney features was Michael "going back to the well for the 11th billion time" Eisner, and the screwed up structure they had Roy Disney relegated to since his direct report also reported to Eisner.
Things got better after he was out of the picture.
Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years.
Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)?
I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.
Let's see...  While these were not successful movies at the box office, they were good and suffered more from the decline of Disney Animation's reputation at the hands of Eisner than their own merits.
The Emperor's New Groove (2000)
Lilo and Stitch (2002)
Meet the Robinsons (2007 and has the John Lasseter seal of approval, and overall favorable ratings) 

It's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney can't think of or even appreciate new ideas.
The big question a few years back was, "When Disney buys Pixar, will Pixar be able to maintain their independence, or will Disney's 'creative' minds start steering the ship?
"  

Pixar's creative team are steering the ship!
The only people over them is Bob Iger and the board of directors where Steve Jobs holds a majority stake and Roy Disney is a huge Pixar fan.
Why do you think Catmull and Lasseter both report directly to Bob Iger?
Furthermore, Disney has never put stock in sequels.
Sure, they've churned them out on direct-to-DVD releases, but until Toy Story 2, they never released a theatrical sequel.
Pixar, however, is batting 1.000 with sequels, and NOTHING so far indicates they will fail that.
I don't know if we really have a complete and definitive answer, since Pixar may have enough talent to make these sequels good.
What's more it might be that these sequels are a blip, and after them we'll get a rash of original characters and story-lines.
On the other hand, this doesn't seem like a good sign.
When has Pixar ever disappointed?
Their worst works are better than just about anything any other animation house has put out.
Even their shorts are exceptional!
As long as Lasseter and Catmull are running things, I have absolute faith that if they do create sequels, they will be stories worth telling.
Because to those guys, along with Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, and Brad Bird, the story IS what is important, and has always come first.
Now, bring us a Lasseter/Pixar classic Disney character film!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274781</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Disney</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244564520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either that interview didn't come from someone currently working at Pixar (unsurprisingly, corporate policy prohibits badmouthing their own products publicly) or they were referring not to Toy Story 2's status as a sequel, but its production time line that literally killed someone (traffic accident caused by sleep deprivation). Or to the original plan for it to be a ninety minute, direct to DVD release.</p><p>Toy Story 2 is arguably Pixar's best release. I see no reason to worry about future sequels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either that interview did n't come from someone currently working at Pixar ( unsurprisingly , corporate policy prohibits badmouthing their own products publicly ) or they were referring not to Toy Story 2 's status as a sequel , but its production time line that literally killed someone ( traffic accident caused by sleep deprivation ) .
Or to the original plan for it to be a ninety minute , direct to DVD release.Toy Story 2 is arguably Pixar 's best release .
I see no reason to worry about future sequels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either that interview didn't come from someone currently working at Pixar (unsurprisingly, corporate policy prohibits badmouthing their own products publicly) or they were referring not to Toy Story 2's status as a sequel, but its production time line that literally killed someone (traffic accident caused by sleep deprivation).
Or to the original plan for it to be a ninety minute, direct to DVD release.Toy Story 2 is arguably Pixar's best release.
I see no reason to worry about future sequels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28279549</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1244648220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Well, they do own them after all.</i></p><p>Actually, in the end, I'd argue it's the other way around.  Or did you not realize that Lasseter has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Lasseter#Back\_at\_Disney" title="wikipedia.org">green-light power</a> [wikipedia.org] at Disney for all their feature film projects?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , they do own them after all.Actually , in the end , I 'd argue it 's the other way around .
Or did you not realize that Lasseter has green-light power [ wikipedia.org ] at Disney for all their feature film projects ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, they do own them after all.Actually, in the end, I'd argue it's the other way around.
Or did you not realize that Lasseter has green-light power [wikipedia.org] at Disney for all their feature film projects?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273583</id>
	<title>Inaccurate Headline</title>
	<author>Blackeagle\_Falcon</author>
	<datestamp>1244554140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pixar's next three films won't all be sequels.  Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 will be followed by two original films: The Bear and the Bow, and Newt.  Since it was just announced, Monsters Inc. 2 will presumably be sometime after that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pixar 's next three films wo n't all be sequels .
Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 will be followed by two original films : The Bear and the Bow , and Newt .
Since it was just announced , Monsters Inc. 2 will presumably be sometime after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pixar's next three films won't all be sequels.
Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 will be followed by two original films: The Bear and the Bow, and Newt.
Since it was just announced, Monsters Inc. 2 will presumably be sometime after that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273989</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244557440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right. Who has ever watched Cinderella, Anastasia, Lion King, or Alladin?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
Who has ever watched Cinderella , Anastasia , Lion King , or Alladin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
Who has ever watched Cinderella, Anastasia, Lion King, or Alladin?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276501</id>
	<title>What on earth is wrong with sequels?</title>
	<author>goldcd</author>
	<datestamp>1244667000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plenty wrong with 'bad' sequels, made entirely to cash in - but not with sequels per se.<br>
Off the top of my head, they already made one with Toy Story 2 - which in my and most people's opinion was better than the original.<br>
As to the comment below about falling returns, these films are going to be generating money for decades (think of the Disney back-catalogue that's getting continuously re-released to much fan-fare every few years).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plenty wrong with 'bad ' sequels , made entirely to cash in - but not with sequels per se .
Off the top of my head , they already made one with Toy Story 2 - which in my and most people 's opinion was better than the original .
As to the comment below about falling returns , these films are going to be generating money for decades ( think of the Disney back-catalogue that 's getting continuously re-released to much fan-fare every few years ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plenty wrong with 'bad' sequels, made entirely to cash in - but not with sequels per se.
Off the top of my head, they already made one with Toy Story 2 - which in my and most people's opinion was better than the original.
As to the comment below about falling returns, these films are going to be generating money for decades (think of the Disney back-catalogue that's getting continuously re-released to much fan-fare every few years).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273673</id>
	<title>Get it over with. Do them all in one shot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244554980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Bugs and Rats drive Nemo's Incredible Toy Car Up the Monsters' Wall"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bugs and Rats drive Nemo 's Incredible Toy Car Up the Monsters ' Wall "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bugs and Rats drive Nemo's Incredible Toy Car Up the Monsters' Wall"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274105</id>
	<title>My 2 cents</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1244558640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I normally don't care about news of this nature. I like film to a point but what normally qualifies as geek film does little for me. Anyway, from the blurb...<br> <br> <i>Are commercial pressures catching up with one of our most inventive movie companies?</i> <br> <br>Please. As much as I understand that Pixar is a beloved entity around here let's be honest. The way that this is stated acts like "commercial pressures" are exterior and actively destroying Pixar. Pixar has a choice in the way their company goes and what it does and does not put out. If Pixar bows to the fast buck that's their decision and if it lowers the to the same level as whomever is putting out these god awful Saturday morning cartoons I see anymore than so be it. I just hate to see people act like some mysterious force is at play here. If Pixar sells out they should get the same respect as Disney seems to get around here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I normally do n't care about news of this nature .
I like film to a point but what normally qualifies as geek film does little for me .
Anyway , from the blurb... Are commercial pressures catching up with one of our most inventive movie companies ?
Please. As much as I understand that Pixar is a beloved entity around here let 's be honest .
The way that this is stated acts like " commercial pressures " are exterior and actively destroying Pixar .
Pixar has a choice in the way their company goes and what it does and does not put out .
If Pixar bows to the fast buck that 's their decision and if it lowers the to the same level as whomever is putting out these god awful Saturday morning cartoons I see anymore than so be it .
I just hate to see people act like some mysterious force is at play here .
If Pixar sells out they should get the same respect as Disney seems to get around here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I normally don't care about news of this nature.
I like film to a point but what normally qualifies as geek film does little for me.
Anyway, from the blurb...  Are commercial pressures catching up with one of our most inventive movie companies?
Please. As much as I understand that Pixar is a beloved entity around here let's be honest.
The way that this is stated acts like "commercial pressures" are exterior and actively destroying Pixar.
Pixar has a choice in the way their company goes and what it does and does not put out.
If Pixar bows to the fast buck that's their decision and if it lowers the to the same level as whomever is putting out these god awful Saturday morning cartoons I see anymore than so be it.
I just hate to see people act like some mysterious force is at play here.
If Pixar sells out they should get the same respect as Disney seems to get around here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276843</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Rakarra</author>
	<datestamp>1244627820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Disney didn't make Anastasia, that was Dreamworks.</p><p>It wasn't Dreamworks either, it was Fox Animations Studios, which at the time was Don Bluth's (Secret of Nimh, American Tale, Titan AE) house.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, you look at their more recent stuff - "The Emperor's New Groove", "Treasure Planet", "Chicken Little" - some of that just makes a person want to look away again.</p></div><p>The other two were dreck, but everyone I've talked to who has seen The Emperor's New Groove really liked it (haven't seen it myself). It's apparently a good film if you take the effort to see it, but it's not an easy sell.</p><p>Then again, I didn't think Up was an easy sell either.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney did n't make Anastasia , that was Dreamworks.It was n't Dreamworks either , it was Fox Animations Studios , which at the time was Don Bluth 's ( Secret of Nimh , American Tale , Titan AE ) house.I mean , you look at their more recent stuff - " The Emperor 's New Groove " , " Treasure Planet " , " Chicken Little " - some of that just makes a person want to look away again.The other two were dreck , but everyone I 've talked to who has seen The Emperor 's New Groove really liked it ( have n't seen it myself ) .
It 's apparently a good film if you take the effort to see it , but it 's not an easy sell.Then again , I did n't think Up was an easy sell either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney didn't make Anastasia, that was Dreamworks.It wasn't Dreamworks either, it was Fox Animations Studios, which at the time was Don Bluth's (Secret of Nimh, American Tale, Titan AE) house.I mean, you look at their more recent stuff - "The Emperor's New Groove", "Treasure Planet", "Chicken Little" - some of that just makes a person want to look away again.The other two were dreck, but everyone I've talked to who has seen The Emperor's New Groove really liked it (haven't seen it myself).
It's apparently a good film if you take the effort to see it, but it's not an easy sell.Then again, I didn't think Up was an easy sell either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274731</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1244564160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)?</p></div><p>How often does Disney even make an original animated movie?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go ahead , what was the last good original animated Disney movie ( not counting those made by Pixar ) ? How often does Disney even make an original animated movie ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)?How often does Disney even make an original animated movie?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274569</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1244562660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years. Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)? I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago. It's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney can't think of or even appreciate new ideas. The big question a few years back was, "When Disney buys Pixar, will Pixar be able to maintain their independence, or will Disney's 'creative' minds start steering the ship?"</p> </div><p>Disney's formula has pretty much been lame-ass princess romance stories unless they feel like branching out and ripping off some anime. Lion King was Kimba, the one with what was it, Atlantis? That was ripping off another anime with a hero with glasses who had the hots for some native-type chick in a bikini.</p><p>What was great about Pixar is their ideas were so fresh and original, they were the sorts of things you only wished you could think up. If they go the route of by-the-numbers mechanical exploitation of the "franchises," that's going to be a sad day. The death of the Disney theme parks is when they stopped doing it for the fun and started doing it for the money. I was a tyke when they were still great and I remembered them as what Heaven should be, better than life and maintaining standards royalty couldn't fault. By the time I became an adult they'd decayed to crass, plastic, mass-market trash. It was disgusting, like dying and meeting St. Pete at the Pearly Gates only to see a "sponsored by Starbucks" sticker plastered across.</p><p>Pixar is going to begin the slow circling of the drain. Watch the talent defect to a new studio with heart and integrity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years .
Go ahead , what was the last good original animated Disney movie ( not counting those made by Pixar ) ?
I do n't know , but I 'm estimating something like 20 years ago .
It 's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney ca n't think of or even appreciate new ideas .
The big question a few years back was , " When Disney buys Pixar , will Pixar be able to maintain their independence , or will Disney 's 'creative ' minds start steering the ship ?
" Disney 's formula has pretty much been lame-ass princess romance stories unless they feel like branching out and ripping off some anime .
Lion King was Kimba , the one with what was it , Atlantis ?
That was ripping off another anime with a hero with glasses who had the hots for some native-type chick in a bikini.What was great about Pixar is their ideas were so fresh and original , they were the sorts of things you only wished you could think up .
If they go the route of by-the-numbers mechanical exploitation of the " franchises , " that 's going to be a sad day .
The death of the Disney theme parks is when they stopped doing it for the fun and started doing it for the money .
I was a tyke when they were still great and I remembered them as what Heaven should be , better than life and maintaining standards royalty could n't fault .
By the time I became an adult they 'd decayed to crass , plastic , mass-market trash .
It was disgusting , like dying and meeting St. Pete at the Pearly Gates only to see a " sponsored by Starbucks " sticker plastered across.Pixar is going to begin the slow circling of the drain .
Watch the talent defect to a new studio with heart and integrity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years.
Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)?
I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.
It's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney can't think of or even appreciate new ideas.
The big question a few years back was, "When Disney buys Pixar, will Pixar be able to maintain their independence, or will Disney's 'creative' minds start steering the ship?
" Disney's formula has pretty much been lame-ass princess romance stories unless they feel like branching out and ripping off some anime.
Lion King was Kimba, the one with what was it, Atlantis?
That was ripping off another anime with a hero with glasses who had the hots for some native-type chick in a bikini.What was great about Pixar is their ideas were so fresh and original, they were the sorts of things you only wished you could think up.
If they go the route of by-the-numbers mechanical exploitation of the "franchises," that's going to be a sad day.
The death of the Disney theme parks is when they stopped doing it for the fun and started doing it for the money.
I was a tyke when they were still great and I remembered them as what Heaven should be, better than life and maintaining standards royalty couldn't fault.
By the time I became an adult they'd decayed to crass, plastic, mass-market trash.
It was disgusting, like dying and meeting St. Pete at the Pearly Gates only to see a "sponsored by Starbucks" sticker plastered across.Pixar is going to begin the slow circling of the drain.
Watch the talent defect to a new studio with heart and integrity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275611</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Conspiracy\_Of\_Doves</author>
	<datestamp>1244571480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out the terminally under-hyped "Treasure Planet" (2002) when you get a chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out the terminally under-hyped " Treasure Planet " ( 2002 ) when you get a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out the terminally under-hyped "Treasure Planet" (2002) when you get a chance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275209</id>
	<title>Re:Blame Disney</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1244568480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disney is a marketing and entertainment machine; its skills in the storytelling department were present up until the old guard died.</p><p>As a kid, I never liked Disney movies much.  There were only a few recent movies I really enjoyed from them (Lion King, etc), and the reason I liked them is because those stories had -depth- and were told well.  As it turns out, though, I'm a difficult person to please.</p><p>I'm someone who likes to be able to find the hidden truths in things.  As a kid, I read the entire Hans Christian Andersen collection, and I was quite surprised to find out that the stories I grew up with were Disney-ified quite a bit.  (did you know that The Little Mermaid was originally a horror story?)  The Disney-ification is most apparent in its whole princess thing (just look at Hannah Montana for a reminder), which is enlightening up to a point, but beyond that, it's like expecting substance that isn't really there.  Granted, you have to appease an audience to make a story work, so it's only a petty irk.</p><p>Pixar does things differently.  It tells a story, it even bends the truth (look at Toys, Cars, Monsters Inc, etc), but it's very cut-and-dried where the truth ends (toys don't really move, there's no monsters in the closet, etc).  The connection to reality is there on many levels (even the various romance scenes that Pixar comes up with), whereas Disney's idea of reality is rooted in the Disney sub-culture, which is...  unique.  (much of the time, it mirrors Disneyland)</p><p>Disclaimer:  I've never been to any Disney theme park, and I have no plans to do so (yet).  Perhaps that's why I'm so cynical towards Disney.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney is a marketing and entertainment machine ; its skills in the storytelling department were present up until the old guard died.As a kid , I never liked Disney movies much .
There were only a few recent movies I really enjoyed from them ( Lion King , etc ) , and the reason I liked them is because those stories had -depth- and were told well .
As it turns out , though , I 'm a difficult person to please.I 'm someone who likes to be able to find the hidden truths in things .
As a kid , I read the entire Hans Christian Andersen collection , and I was quite surprised to find out that the stories I grew up with were Disney-ified quite a bit .
( did you know that The Little Mermaid was originally a horror story ?
) The Disney-ification is most apparent in its whole princess thing ( just look at Hannah Montana for a reminder ) , which is enlightening up to a point , but beyond that , it 's like expecting substance that is n't really there .
Granted , you have to appease an audience to make a story work , so it 's only a petty irk.Pixar does things differently .
It tells a story , it even bends the truth ( look at Toys , Cars , Monsters Inc , etc ) , but it 's very cut-and-dried where the truth ends ( toys do n't really move , there 's no monsters in the closet , etc ) .
The connection to reality is there on many levels ( even the various romance scenes that Pixar comes up with ) , whereas Disney 's idea of reality is rooted in the Disney sub-culture , which is... unique. ( much of the time , it mirrors Disneyland ) Disclaimer : I 've never been to any Disney theme park , and I have no plans to do so ( yet ) .
Perhaps that 's why I 'm so cynical towards Disney .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney is a marketing and entertainment machine; its skills in the storytelling department were present up until the old guard died.As a kid, I never liked Disney movies much.
There were only a few recent movies I really enjoyed from them (Lion King, etc), and the reason I liked them is because those stories had -depth- and were told well.
As it turns out, though, I'm a difficult person to please.I'm someone who likes to be able to find the hidden truths in things.
As a kid, I read the entire Hans Christian Andersen collection, and I was quite surprised to find out that the stories I grew up with were Disney-ified quite a bit.
(did you know that The Little Mermaid was originally a horror story?
)  The Disney-ification is most apparent in its whole princess thing (just look at Hannah Montana for a reminder), which is enlightening up to a point, but beyond that, it's like expecting substance that isn't really there.
Granted, you have to appease an audience to make a story work, so it's only a petty irk.Pixar does things differently.
It tells a story, it even bends the truth (look at Toys, Cars, Monsters Inc, etc), but it's very cut-and-dried where the truth ends (toys don't really move, there's no monsters in the closet, etc).
The connection to reality is there on many levels (even the various romance scenes that Pixar comes up with), whereas Disney's idea of reality is rooted in the Disney sub-culture, which is...  unique.  (much of the time, it mirrors Disneyland)Disclaimer:  I've never been to any Disney theme park, and I have no plans to do so (yet).
Perhaps that's why I'm so cynical towards Disney.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273955</id>
	<title>Re:Sequels are not always bad</title>
	<author>cowscows</author>
	<datestamp>1244557140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, the knee-jerk reaction where everybody hears the word "sequel" and immediately jumps to "half-assed money grab" isn't necessarily fair, especially to an organization like Pixar which did really well on their previous sequel.</p><p>They've created some characters and worlds that have lots of potential, and it'd be a shame to limit the exploration of all of that to only 90 minutes or so just because that's the useful length of a movie. Like you said, there needs to be a real story there, but with the amount of creative people that Pixar has, it shouldn't be too difficult for them to come up with some quality stuff. In fact, I'd imagine that for each of their previous movies, there were tons of good ideas or story arcs that didn't make it into film, not because it wasn't a good idea, but because they only had so much time to fill.</p><p>Now if disney starts farming out pixar characters offshore for quick straight-to-DVD release, then you should start worrying about them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , the knee-jerk reaction where everybody hears the word " sequel " and immediately jumps to " half-assed money grab " is n't necessarily fair , especially to an organization like Pixar which did really well on their previous sequel.They 've created some characters and worlds that have lots of potential , and it 'd be a shame to limit the exploration of all of that to only 90 minutes or so just because that 's the useful length of a movie .
Like you said , there needs to be a real story there , but with the amount of creative people that Pixar has , it should n't be too difficult for them to come up with some quality stuff .
In fact , I 'd imagine that for each of their previous movies , there were tons of good ideas or story arcs that did n't make it into film , not because it was n't a good idea , but because they only had so much time to fill.Now if disney starts farming out pixar characters offshore for quick straight-to-DVD release , then you should start worrying about them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, the knee-jerk reaction where everybody hears the word "sequel" and immediately jumps to "half-assed money grab" isn't necessarily fair, especially to an organization like Pixar which did really well on their previous sequel.They've created some characters and worlds that have lots of potential, and it'd be a shame to limit the exploration of all of that to only 90 minutes or so just because that's the useful length of a movie.
Like you said, there needs to be a real story there, but with the amount of creative people that Pixar has, it shouldn't be too difficult for them to come up with some quality stuff.
In fact, I'd imagine that for each of their previous movies, there were tons of good ideas or story arcs that didn't make it into film, not because it wasn't a good idea, but because they only had so much time to fill.Now if disney starts farming out pixar characters offshore for quick straight-to-DVD release, then you should start worrying about them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275535</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244570940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thirteen years is far less than twenty years?<br>Whodathunkit!<br>I'd say it's less than twenty, but "far less" would indicate something like five/six years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thirteen years is far less than twenty years ? Whodathunkit ! I 'd say it 's less than twenty , but " far less " would indicate something like five/six years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thirteen years is far less than twenty years?Whodathunkit!I'd say it's less than twenty, but "far less" would indicate something like five/six years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274545</id>
	<title>Re:Sequels are not always bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244562540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't personally list The Empire Strikes Back in the list of sequels that turned out great simply because it was an anomaly.  Star Wars was great as a one-off that turned into a surprise hit, Empire was great, and the rest were awful.  Empire was great only because Lucas hired a real film maker -- Kirshner -- and turned him loose, and Lucas almost had a heart attack when he realized the direction Kirshner was taking it.  Empire succeeded in spite of Lucas' best efforts to the contrary.  Its being great is more along the lines of finding a Baby Ruth in the pool in spite of all of the people who have crapped in the water since.<br><a href="http://www.secrethistoryofstarwars.com/" title="secrethist...arwars.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.secrethistoryofstarwars.com/</a> [secrethist...arwars.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't personally list The Empire Strikes Back in the list of sequels that turned out great simply because it was an anomaly .
Star Wars was great as a one-off that turned into a surprise hit , Empire was great , and the rest were awful .
Empire was great only because Lucas hired a real film maker -- Kirshner -- and turned him loose , and Lucas almost had a heart attack when he realized the direction Kirshner was taking it .
Empire succeeded in spite of Lucas ' best efforts to the contrary .
Its being great is more along the lines of finding a Baby Ruth in the pool in spite of all of the people who have crapped in the water since.http : //www.secrethistoryofstarwars.com/ [ secrethist...arwars.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't personally list The Empire Strikes Back in the list of sequels that turned out great simply because it was an anomaly.
Star Wars was great as a one-off that turned into a surprise hit, Empire was great, and the rest were awful.
Empire was great only because Lucas hired a real film maker -- Kirshner -- and turned him loose, and Lucas almost had a heart attack when he realized the direction Kirshner was taking it.
Empire succeeded in spite of Lucas' best efforts to the contrary.
Its being great is more along the lines of finding a Baby Ruth in the pool in spite of all of the people who have crapped in the water since.http://www.secrethistoryofstarwars.com/ [secrethist...arwars.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274745</id>
	<title>Have you seen Up!</title>
	<author>Nicky G</author>
	<datestamp>1244564280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Up! is an amazing, amazing movie.  What they were able to do with that movie, which as far as I'm concerned is a legitimate piece of quality cinema, is simply fabulous.  And how can you not like Doug, and Kevin, and an awesome airship?!</p><p>Before that there was this little movie called WALL&#226;E you may have heard of -- I understand it was kind of successful, and well-received...</p><p>Yeah.... I'm not too worried based on the last several flicks.  They've had a few movies I wasn't as hot on, but the recent trend seems to indicate higher quality than ever before, not lower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Up !
is an amazing , amazing movie .
What they were able to do with that movie , which as far as I 'm concerned is a legitimate piece of quality cinema , is simply fabulous .
And how can you not like Doug , and Kevin , and an awesome airship ?
! Before that there was this little movie called WALL   E you may have heard of -- I understand it was kind of successful , and well-received...Yeah.... I 'm not too worried based on the last several flicks .
They 've had a few movies I was n't as hot on , but the recent trend seems to indicate higher quality than ever before , not lower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up!
is an amazing, amazing movie.
What they were able to do with that movie, which as far as I'm concerned is a legitimate piece of quality cinema, is simply fabulous.
And how can you not like Doug, and Kevin, and an awesome airship?
!Before that there was this little movie called WALLâE you may have heard of -- I understand it was kind of successful, and well-received...Yeah.... I'm not too worried based on the last several flicks.
They've had a few movies I wasn't as hot on, but the recent trend seems to indicate higher quality than ever before, not lower.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28282387</id>
	<title>Sequels are Hard</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1244659800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sequels are hard. Why? That WOW! factor the first time your Toys start moving and talking, you were transported under the ocean, or to a world of intelligent funny Cars, a tiny trash compactor turned out to have a huge personality, or your house flys Up, Up, and away is really hard to replicate a second time around.<br> <br>
People go to sequels to get the same feelings that they got in the original movie. The problem is, that after a few viewings of the original movie you've developed an immune response to this Wow factor.  If you didn't, then you could just keep watching that original over and over again for the same effect.
<br> <br>
For sequels to have the same effect you need to punch everything up to a higher level, but that's really hard. Chances are that you liked the original movie simply because it did take things absolutely as far as you felt they could be taken.  Now you need more - a stronger hit. In order to give you that the studios need to figure out what you liked about the original and how to punch it up even more. They tend to do this badly, resulting in sequels that are often more parodies of the originals than true sequels.
<br> <br>
A truly original idea in Hollywood is the rarest of things. A truly good sequel that can affect you as strongly as the original did, and for as long as the original did, has got to be the next rarest thing.
<br> <br>
Sequels can succeed - and even be better.  See Godfather II. But it's really, really hard to do them right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sequels are hard .
Why ? That WOW !
factor the first time your Toys start moving and talking , you were transported under the ocean , or to a world of intelligent funny Cars , a tiny trash compactor turned out to have a huge personality , or your house flys Up , Up , and away is really hard to replicate a second time around .
People go to sequels to get the same feelings that they got in the original movie .
The problem is , that after a few viewings of the original movie you 've developed an immune response to this Wow factor .
If you did n't , then you could just keep watching that original over and over again for the same effect .
For sequels to have the same effect you need to punch everything up to a higher level , but that 's really hard .
Chances are that you liked the original movie simply because it did take things absolutely as far as you felt they could be taken .
Now you need more - a stronger hit .
In order to give you that the studios need to figure out what you liked about the original and how to punch it up even more .
They tend to do this badly , resulting in sequels that are often more parodies of the originals than true sequels .
A truly original idea in Hollywood is the rarest of things .
A truly good sequel that can affect you as strongly as the original did , and for as long as the original did , has got to be the next rarest thing .
Sequels can succeed - and even be better .
See Godfather II .
But it 's really , really hard to do them right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sequels are hard.
Why? That WOW!
factor the first time your Toys start moving and talking, you were transported under the ocean, or to a world of intelligent funny Cars, a tiny trash compactor turned out to have a huge personality, or your house flys Up, Up, and away is really hard to replicate a second time around.
People go to sequels to get the same feelings that they got in the original movie.
The problem is, that after a few viewings of the original movie you've developed an immune response to this Wow factor.
If you didn't, then you could just keep watching that original over and over again for the same effect.
For sequels to have the same effect you need to punch everything up to a higher level, but that's really hard.
Chances are that you liked the original movie simply because it did take things absolutely as far as you felt they could be taken.
Now you need more - a stronger hit.
In order to give you that the studios need to figure out what you liked about the original and how to punch it up even more.
They tend to do this badly, resulting in sequels that are often more parodies of the originals than true sequels.
A truly original idea in Hollywood is the rarest of things.
A truly good sequel that can affect you as strongly as the original did, and for as long as the original did, has got to be the next rarest thing.
Sequels can succeed - and even be better.
See Godfather II.
But it's really, really hard to do them right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275099</id>
	<title>Not Cars 2 and Monster Inc 2...</title>
	<author>Daswolfen</author>
	<datestamp>1244567760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want my Incredibles sequel! That was one of the best superhero movies made!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want my Incredibles sequel !
That was one of the best superhero movies made !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want my Incredibles sequel!
That was one of the best superhero movies made!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275961</id>
	<title>SQLs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244574840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd  like to see an Incredibles sequel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see an Incredibles sequel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd  like to see an Incredibles sequel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28279553</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244648220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brother Bear (2003) will be a classic.  Mark my words.  Disney has only made two other watchable films in the 2000s: Emperor's New Groove and Lilo &amp; Stitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brother Bear ( 2003 ) will be a classic .
Mark my words .
Disney has only made two other watchable films in the 2000s : Emperor 's New Groove and Lilo &amp; Stitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brother Bear (2003) will be a classic.
Mark my words.
Disney has only made two other watchable films in the 2000s: Emperor's New Groove and Lilo &amp; Stitch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273757</id>
	<title>Ideas slowly ran out.. for now</title>
	<author>eamonman</author>
	<datestamp>1244555580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was bound to happen.  Wall-E was the last of the original ideas that were developed at that famous brainstorming session that came up with things like Toy Story, Monsters, and Nemo.  And even though Wall-E was cool and amazing, it still seemed like they were running out of ideas.  IF you just went by initial premises, Wall-E and UP are pretty different compared to before: Cars (anthropomorphizing gang of cars adventure),  Nemo (anthropomorphizing buddy fish adventure), Toy Story (anthropomorphizing gang of toys adventure), Monsters Inc (anthropomorphizing buddy monster adventure).</p><p>I'm not saying different isn't bad, but it's hard to get the overwhelming masses to go see weirder and weirder premised movies.  So I'm worried.  I wouldn't say that it's not looking good, but it will be a great challenge to come up with some memorable movies after this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was bound to happen .
Wall-E was the last of the original ideas that were developed at that famous brainstorming session that came up with things like Toy Story , Monsters , and Nemo .
And even though Wall-E was cool and amazing , it still seemed like they were running out of ideas .
IF you just went by initial premises , Wall-E and UP are pretty different compared to before : Cars ( anthropomorphizing gang of cars adventure ) , Nemo ( anthropomorphizing buddy fish adventure ) , Toy Story ( anthropomorphizing gang of toys adventure ) , Monsters Inc ( anthropomorphizing buddy monster adventure ) .I 'm not saying different is n't bad , but it 's hard to get the overwhelming masses to go see weirder and weirder premised movies .
So I 'm worried .
I would n't say that it 's not looking good , but it will be a great challenge to come up with some memorable movies after this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was bound to happen.
Wall-E was the last of the original ideas that were developed at that famous brainstorming session that came up with things like Toy Story, Monsters, and Nemo.
And even though Wall-E was cool and amazing, it still seemed like they were running out of ideas.
IF you just went by initial premises, Wall-E and UP are pretty different compared to before: Cars (anthropomorphizing gang of cars adventure),  Nemo (anthropomorphizing buddy fish adventure), Toy Story (anthropomorphizing gang of toys adventure), Monsters Inc (anthropomorphizing buddy monster adventure).I'm not saying different isn't bad, but it's hard to get the overwhelming masses to go see weirder and weirder premised movies.
So I'm worried.
I wouldn't say that it's not looking good, but it will be a great challenge to come up with some memorable movies after this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276995</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>the\_other\_chewey</author>
	<datestamp>1244629500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)? I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.</p></div><p>
Aladdin (1992)<br>
The Emperor's New Groove (2000)<br>
Lilo &amp; Stitch (2002)<br>
Treasure Planet (2002)<br>
Bolt (2008)<br>
<br>
The first three are rather anarchic and great fun, Treasure Planet is one of the very best "Treasure Island" movies adaptations in my opinion,<br>
and Bolt is harmless, but quite entertaining.<br>
<br>
True, there have been a number of (sometimes very) weak movies in between, especially in the last decade or so, but to claim that<br>
Disney Animation is in general decline is just wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go ahead , what was the last good original animated Disney movie ( not counting those made by Pixar ) ?
I do n't know , but I 'm estimating something like 20 years ago .
Aladdin ( 1992 ) The Emperor 's New Groove ( 2000 ) Lilo &amp; Stitch ( 2002 ) Treasure Planet ( 2002 ) Bolt ( 2008 ) The first three are rather anarchic and great fun , Treasure Planet is one of the very best " Treasure Island " movies adaptations in my opinion , and Bolt is harmless , but quite entertaining .
True , there have been a number of ( sometimes very ) weak movies in between , especially in the last decade or so , but to claim that Disney Animation is in general decline is just wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)?
I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.
Aladdin (1992)
The Emperor's New Groove (2000)
Lilo &amp; Stitch (2002)
Treasure Planet (2002)
Bolt (2008)

The first three are rather anarchic and great fun, Treasure Planet is one of the very best "Treasure Island" movies adaptations in my opinion,
and Bolt is harmless, but quite entertaining.
True, there have been a number of (sometimes very) weak movies in between, especially in the last decade or so, but to claim that
Disney Animation is in general decline is just wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274187</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244559420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I can remember, it was Lion King, and I remember watching that when I was five or six, meaning it's been at least 14 or 15 years at this point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I can remember , it was Lion King , and I remember watching that when I was five or six , meaning it 's been at least 14 or 15 years at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I can remember, it was Lion King, and I remember watching that when I was five or six, meaning it's been at least 14 or 15 years at this point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276363</id>
	<title>Re:fairly well insulated</title>
	<author>bogjobber</author>
	<datestamp>1244665560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><i>I think Disney realizes that they were digging themselves into a big hole with their own crummy animated movies leading up to the time when they bought Pixar.</i></p></div>  </blockquote><p>Digging themselves into a big hole filled with billions of dollars, maybe.  Disney didn't buy Pixar because they were in trouble, they bought Pixar because they are a consistent, profitable studio that combined with the marketing and distribution power of Disney could make an obscenely large amount of money, which is exactly what they've done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Disney realizes that they were digging themselves into a big hole with their own crummy animated movies leading up to the time when they bought Pixar .
Digging themselves into a big hole filled with billions of dollars , maybe .
Disney did n't buy Pixar because they were in trouble , they bought Pixar because they are a consistent , profitable studio that combined with the marketing and distribution power of Disney could make an obscenely large amount of money , which is exactly what they 've done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Disney realizes that they were digging themselves into a big hole with their own crummy animated movies leading up to the time when they bought Pixar.
Digging themselves into a big hole filled with billions of dollars, maybe.
Disney didn't buy Pixar because they were in trouble, they bought Pixar because they are a consistent, profitable studio that combined with the marketing and distribution power of Disney could make an obscenely large amount of money, which is exactly what they've done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273823</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit</title>
	<author>SimDarth</author>
	<datestamp>1244556120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep.  Here is the article: <a href="http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/04/08/pixar-announces-up-newt-the-bear-and-the-bow-and-cars-2/" title="slashfilm.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/04/08/pixar-announces-up-newt-the-bear-and-the-bow-and-cars-2/</a> [slashfilm.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
Here is the article : http : //www.slashfilm.com/2008/04/08/pixar-announces-up-newt-the-bear-and-the-bow-and-cars-2/ [ slashfilm.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
Here is the article: http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/04/08/pixar-announces-up-newt-the-bear-and-the-bow-and-cars-2/ [slashfilm.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28280867</id>
	<title>Re:These are sequels that people actually want</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1244653920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Mad props to Pixar for giving a great actor like Ed Asner a starring role in a high-budget blockbuster film at the age of 76. The man's earned the right to rake in some serious royalty cash for himself and his heirs.</p></div><p>Don't worry about that. You can be assured that the books they use to calculate voice-actor residuals will show that Up lost money, no matter how much it actually rakes in. Large entertainment companies put their best creative talent in their accounting departments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mad props to Pixar for giving a great actor like Ed Asner a starring role in a high-budget blockbuster film at the age of 76 .
The man 's earned the right to rake in some serious royalty cash for himself and his heirs.Do n't worry about that .
You can be assured that the books they use to calculate voice-actor residuals will show that Up lost money , no matter how much it actually rakes in .
Large entertainment companies put their best creative talent in their accounting departments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Mad props to Pixar for giving a great actor like Ed Asner a starring role in a high-budget blockbuster film at the age of 76.
The man's earned the right to rake in some serious royalty cash for himself and his heirs.Don't worry about that.
You can be assured that the books they use to calculate voice-actor residuals will show that Up lost money, no matter how much it actually rakes in.
Large entertainment companies put their best creative talent in their accounting departments.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277959</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to worry about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244640300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering Tarzan or Hunchback original stretches the meaning of the word further than any word should ever reasonably expect to be stretched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering Tarzan or Hunchback original stretches the meaning of the word further than any word should ever reasonably expect to be stretched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering Tarzan or Hunchback original stretches the meaning of the word further than any word should ever reasonably expect to be stretched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274787</id>
	<title>Pixar has which not too many studios have...</title>
	<author>thekm</author>
	<datestamp>1244564700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...creative integrity. These movies stand a great chance of being awesome because the back-story has already been told. A movie spends a fair amount of time establishing context and character... they get to get straight into it, which is what helped ToyStory 2. Sequels can be great when they've been done properly with the right amount of creative integrity.
<br> <br>
Ratatouille was just about complete and it wasn't what they were after. They brought in Brad Bird who re-wrote it and did it right. If they have the creative integrity to do things like this, then I'm fully looking forward to these movies.
<br> <br>
Pixar really do deserve people giving their projects the benefit of the doubt at least until they make a dud. Their creativity and originality have been amazing; a step above of any other studio in the industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...creative integrity .
These movies stand a great chance of being awesome because the back-story has already been told .
A movie spends a fair amount of time establishing context and character... they get to get straight into it , which is what helped ToyStory 2 .
Sequels can be great when they 've been done properly with the right amount of creative integrity .
Ratatouille was just about complete and it was n't what they were after .
They brought in Brad Bird who re-wrote it and did it right .
If they have the creative integrity to do things like this , then I 'm fully looking forward to these movies .
Pixar really do deserve people giving their projects the benefit of the doubt at least until they make a dud .
Their creativity and originality have been amazing ; a step above of any other studio in the industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...creative integrity.
These movies stand a great chance of being awesome because the back-story has already been told.
A movie spends a fair amount of time establishing context and character... they get to get straight into it, which is what helped ToyStory 2.
Sequels can be great when they've been done properly with the right amount of creative integrity.
Ratatouille was just about complete and it wasn't what they were after.
They brought in Brad Bird who re-wrote it and did it right.
If they have the creative integrity to do things like this, then I'm fully looking forward to these movies.
Pixar really do deserve people giving their projects the benefit of the doubt at least until they make a dud.
Their creativity and originality have been amazing; a step above of any other studio in the industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278131</id>
	<title>And?</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1244641740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as they're good who cares?

At least they're making sequels of original content that they made themselves and not re-hashing old ideas and squeezing all the life out of them. I'm looking at you, the makers of the A-Team.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they 're good who cares ?
At least they 're making sequels of original content that they made themselves and not re-hashing old ideas and squeezing all the life out of them .
I 'm looking at you , the makers of the A-Team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as they're good who cares?
At least they're making sequels of original content that they made themselves and not re-hashing old ideas and squeezing all the life out of them.
I'm looking at you, the makers of the A-Team.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28279851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28280495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28281085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28279549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28280867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28281297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28280051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28279553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28279581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28281635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28285347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28283011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1921233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28280051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278393
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28285347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28281297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274671
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28281635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28280867
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28279581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273791
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28281085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273763
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274655
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274207
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28283011
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274361
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274397
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275327
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277695
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28280495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274001
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275535
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276349
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277959
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278309
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275031
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278627
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275019
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274569
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28279851
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28279553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274039
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28277803
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28279549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273989
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274573
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274443
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278857
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28276843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28274379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28275721
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28278505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1921233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1921233.28273757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
