Okay, haven't seen the film, so maybe everything Mater says is on the money. That said, I have to ask...
-Does Toy Story really have a monopoly over this concept? Pets acting differently when their owners aren't around and possessing a pseudo-society of their own? Gee, that goes at least as far back as Cats vs. Dogs. Brothers get separated (said brothers having animosity) forcing the supporting cast to find them? The first Rugrats movie. Pets flushed down the sewer, recruiting other animals to join them? Billy the Cat did an episode based on that premise (just replace "humans" with "dogs" - long story). True, you can draw parallels to Toy Story as well, but I don't think it has a monopoly over any of these concepts. Maybe the execution is the key determinant here, but from what I've seen, saying that this ripped off Toy Story feels like saying Inside Out ripped off The Numbskulls.
-Looking at their record, Illumination has an average record for original works, depending on how you define "original." Despicable Me (an original) spawned two sequels (soon to be three). Hop is an original, and The Lorax is an adaptation, plus we have Secret Life and Sing. I can project further into the future, but either way, that's four originals, three sequels, and one "other" (Lorax, depending on how you define it). That's pretty much par for the course. Blue Sky has Ice Age, Sony has Open Season, DreamWorks has multiple franchises interspaced throughout originals, and then you have studios that base their output entirely on franchises (e.g. Crest Animation). Point is, based on the line "I guess I understand why Illumination is riding the Minions train this hard; coming up with new ideas is hard. It's easier to stick with something you know, which in the studio's case is either yellow gibberish-talking annoyances or ripping off Pixar," makes me raise an eyebrow. The original-ratio record seems to be pretty decent for Illumination. Begs the question, does the franchising of a series equate to lack of originality within a studio? Considering that Pixar arguably has two franchises (Toy Story and Cars, based on amount of output), yet still does lots of original IPs, I'm not sure if that's necessarily the case. The idea of a "bread and butter" franchise allowing you to take risks is something I can understand.
Yeah, probably just rambling, but hey, go figure. I guess if I had to admit it it's because that when it comes to discussing animation studios, Disney, DreamWorks, Pixar, and Studio Ghibli are the only ones I see mentioned with any regularity, and DreamWorks seems to be known more for good franchises (Panda, Dragon, Shrek, etc.) then their work as an actual studio. Variety is the spice of life and all that.
Igor-Rowan said:
Their next movie is Sing, a movie about an animal society with different animals going through a singing competition, again, a little clich?, but the trailers showed promise.
I'm very wary about Sing. I'm left to ask what animals actually add to its plot that humans wouldn't, since it's based on a singing competition, and features the usual tropes one could expect (closet singer with the gorilla, the cocky guy with the mouse, the introvert with the elephant, the trod-down housewife with the pig, etc.). Granted, cliches aren't inherent negatives, and I will say that there is a bit of earnestness with what I've seen in the trailers, but when does that cross the line into emotional manipulation?
On the flipside, kind of looking forward to Storks, even if it seems to be "50% fun, 50% stupid" judging by trailers.