Once again, the fincancial district is affraid of Pixar’s next project, as reported by the New York Times. Apparently this is due to their irrational fear of originality.
It seems to happen every single year. Will Pixar fail now? How about now? It’s like people want Pixar to flop. Isn’t their track record enough to calm people down about their more ambitious productions and get them hyped up for the movie itself? I mean, they’ve had 9 HUGE hits in a row that are loved by critics and general audiences alike. Not only that, but they make big bucks and live on forever as instant classics. Wall Street doesn’t seem to see that, I guess they don’t like good film making.
To make the assumptions that Up will fail even more ridiculous is the fact that Pixar’s 10th film has gotten amazing reviews already, from the first 45 minutes. This is no surprise because the folks at Pixar make movies for themselves (they are the audience after all) and don’t forget John Lasseter’s famous quote "Quality is the best business plan". So, shouldn’t this be enough to prove to the guys back at Wall Street that this film will be a hit. What type of hit, we don’t know yet, but judging from the evidence above, it seems Up won’t dissapoint.
Box office asside, the other worry comes from toy makers who don’t see merchandise potential in Up. As previously reported, they won’t be making much and retailers like Wal-Mart won’t be stocking much either. It’s not like Pixar expects every one of their films to become a line of random merchandise a la Cars. But from what I’ve heard, kids and adults of all ages are already in love with Carl, Russell and Dug. The fact that Carl is old shouldn’t be a factor, we all love our grandparents, right? And it’s an adventure in the jungle, involving planes, a flying house and some pretty amazing creatures. That begs the question, where isn’t there marketing potential.
We’ll see the suits proven wrong for the 10th time in a row in just under two months, cant wait! Let’s hope Toy Story 3 doesn’t cause another unnecessary hassle in Wall Street.
Production budget: At just under $5 million from WALL•E’s cost, Up’s budget is reported to be $175 million dollars, not including marketing. Money well spent considering Pixar films usually make over $500 million at the worldwide box office.
Note: Thank you Brooks Barnes, Disney and The New York Times for mentioning Upcoming Pixar/Pixar Planet in the article.
Hmmm… I’m not sure being worried about such trivial matters is worth it, considering Pixar’s track record. Help me out and tell me what you think in the comments section.
Last modified: April 6, 2009
The worry is rather obvious is it not?
It’s not a franchise, uses no conforming character types and is, as you said, original to dumb US audiences. They have no guartentee that its going to be a success and are therefore hesitant. They want Toy Story and Cars and Shrek and Madagascar. Generally cute talking animals and monsters.
I’m not saying they are right though ¬_¬
This is appalling, I really don’t know what their problem is. I’m sure Up will be as successful as Pixar’s previous films because it’s had wonderful trailers, fantastic word-of-mouth and people recognize the Pixar name as being a mark of quality. Every time I’ve gone to see a film and the Up trailer’s been shown, there’s always been people excitedly talking to each other about how much they want to see it. I can’t wait to see Up and I’m sure it’ll be huge. At a time of economic crisis, people will probably want to go to the cinema more often to escape reality, and nobody can provide that escapism better than Pixar
Anonymous #1: I was being sarcastic, of course I can see what they’re worried about, I just think it’s completely stupid considering the studios track record! Maybe I’ll reword it to make my point clearer.
Heheh. It’s qualms like this that I simply laugh at. Pixar’s track record is too solid for critics and the general audience to fret about whether or not their next production will rake in a profit. Besides, it’s the quality, and not the quantity, that matters. Why does money have to be such an object?
“Apparently this is due to their irrational fear of originality.”
That cracked me up right there.
Anonymous #2 made a good point, by the way, in that people will want to break away from reality and dive into an alternate universe, especially during these tough times, and Pixar never disappoints when it comes to satisfaction.
“But from what I’ve heard, kids and adults of all ages are already in love with Carl, Russell and Dug. The fact that Carl is old shouldn’t be a factor, we all love our grandparents, right? And it’s an adventure in the jungle, involving planes, a flying house and some pretty amazing creatures. That begs the question, where isn’t there marketing potential.”
Concerning merchandising matters, you took the words right out of my mouth.
Upcoming Pixar/Pixar Planet was mentioned in the article? That’s awesome.
@Mitch, I think you forgot one major point when you asked why money has to be such an object. It’s Wall Street. Wall Street is ONLY about money.
But it’s clear that those people know nothing about good filmmaking. Indeed, it’s about quality, not quantity. But try to explain that to those suits… not a chance.
Anonymous – Good point. That Wall Street revolves around money explains it, but it’s still rather saddening to know that some people are so concerned about monetary gain that they overlook the importance of true substance and heart in a film.
This says FAR more about the Disney marketing team than the film. What a shame Disney’s head of film marketing has dropped the ball yet again. They really should fire that guy and get someone in there who likes movies.
Down the street in my neighborhood, there’s a sushi restaurant. My first visit there, the guy who owned the little store was very polite. The sushi was nice, the waitresses were cute, and overall, it was a very good atmosphere. Since then, I’ve gone back once a week over the last 3 months.
The reason? ‘quality of service.’
I always come back to see PIXAR films because I know they have not yet let me down.
Wall Street would be more positive towards PIXAR if they started doing what Eisner had intended with Circle 7 several years ago: start cranking out sequels so that by now we’d have Nemo 3, Toy Story 5, etc. Forget the quality of them: the names would send hoardes of parents scurrying for the multiplexes because of their children begging for more.
Of course, Dreamworks Animation most likely looks like a goldmine to WS. Shrek the Third made $120 million it’s opening weekend. And of course, ‘Shrek 2’ is still the most successful animated film in US BO numbers.
What I like is that there have not been the trickling in of ‘We own you, read our notes and follow them to a ‘T.’ PIXAR so far has been bullet-proof from any tampering of the product thanks to the deal that Iger worked out with PIXAR.
I remember back in 2006 when there was much head-shaking because CARS ‘only’ made $235 million. It beat out ‘X-Men 3’ by several millions, but because it wasn’t anywhere near the numbers that ‘Nemo’ or ‘The Incredibles’ had done, it was seen as a failure.
This reminds me of a story I read in a book where Roy wanted Walt to come to a shareholders meeting. Walt was not at all interested in this. And when he did appear, he read a letter from a man who appreciated what the company did. The guy said something like ‘as long as you keep making good product, I’ll keep coming back.’ Walt then said he had a business to run, and left. Word is, Roy never asked him to speak at another meeting again.
Of course, next year when ‘Toy Story 3’ comes out, the investors will be happily nodding their heads going, ‘yeah, that’s more like it! Now how about churning out a couple more of these, a Christmas Special, some direct-to-video tie-ins, and some other stuff to keep this franchise going until you ruin the magic of it and run it into the ground like a runaway mine train?’
Yes…I have alot to say about this.
Ha! Good points, uruseiranman….
hmmm…seems you either confused between “cost” and “budget” or you didn’t get the number right. Wall-E’s budget is 180million according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pixar_films
It’ll be insane to increase budget at X10 speed for any company.
It seems as though everyone’s pointed out everything there is to point out about this article, so I’ll be brief, and simply pose the following question to those money-hoarding investors: If your outlook on film-making is the exact opposite of that of Pixar’s (i.e., the ridiculous philosophy that quantity goes before quality), why not simply invest on DreamWorks? I’d rather they leave the Pixar people alone (so that Pixar can continue producing quality films) than influence them to make some animated garbage that several companies seem to ‘enjoy’ producing nowadays (with money being the cause of their ‘enjoyment’).
Pixars track record is the opposite to Dreamworks. I.E. – Dreamworks are making more money for generally lower quality work.
That’s going to cause pressure if any Pixar films start to under perform (for real).
People are beginning to compare the twos box office closer recently. Although Pixar are still successfull, they have threat of being only no.2
LOVE PIXAR! LOVE UP!
Ladies and gentlemen, let me present to you another money-obsessed jerk:
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/04/07/does-pixar-care-about-disney-shareholders/1
I left the following comment for that bloggingstocks fellow:
PIXAR has not always been about marketing trends.
You can look at that quote by Pete Doctor and call him ‘selfish,’ but being a longtime PIXAR fanatic, I have to agree with John Lasseter, that ‘quality is the best business plan.’
Of course, since I have no stake in the Walt Disney Company, I’ll probably be discounted as a fanboy who doesn’t realize how the business works.
Right now, PIXAR probably is the only place in the world that can do what they do: they can make films and not have to deal with excessive studio notes regarding the latest hip trends, or be forced into green-lighting unnecessary sequels like those during the days when Michael Eisner was in charge. Let’s not forget that before he was ousted, Eisner had already planned what was seen as a lucrative but ‘creatively-bankrupt’ idea: to create sequels to all the films that PIXAR had success in. Plans were drawn up then for ‘Toy Story 3,’ ‘Finding Nemo 2.’
What John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Brad Bird, and Pete Doctor have is the ability to do what so many artists only dream of doing. Many of us who have studied animation have seen enough studio train wrecks that occurred based on too much tampering (WB’s ‘Quest for Camelot’ comes to mind, a long-forgotten film from a decade ago).
To some in the know for money, Dreamworks Animation is probably going to be seen as more lucrative. Dreamworks moreso prides themselves on the here-and-now. Their films contain myriad pop-culture references, enough flatulent humor to entertain the smallest of under-developed minds, hiring big-name voice talents to entice grown-ups who may be too hip for animation, as well as leaving almost every film open to the possibility of sequels, spin-offs, television specials, and more. Jeffrey Katzenberg several years ago outlined his lucrative plan for the studio’s cash-cow, ‘Shrek.’ This franchise is set to run for 5 films, already has a 3-D studio attraction, a Holiday special, and a supposed spin-off coming for the character Puss-n-Boots.
The biggest debate I’ve seen regarding ‘Up’ is the character of Carl, who is an ‘old man.’ If this was a studio like Warner Bros, Universal, or Fox, the story meeting would end as soon as the pitch started: ‘It’s about this old man-” “Stop. Old people don’t sell. Kids aren’t going to see a film about their Grandpa. What, we’re gonna advertise on Depends now?”
This debate of all things, reminds me of the conversation between Bob Parr and his boss Mr. Huff in ‘The Incredibles.’ Bob is looking at the viewpoint of ‘the many,’ while Mr. Huff is focused on ‘the chosen few’:
“We’re supposed to help OUR PEOPLE!! Starting with our stockholders, Bob. Whose helping them out, huh!?”
“Dreamworks are making more money for generally lower quality work.”
Aside from Chicken Run, most of Dreamworks cartoons (Prince of Egypt, Antz, Road to El Dorado, Sinbad, Cimmeron, Flushed Away, Bee Movie, Over the Hedge. Spirit) did not make their money back (cost to world wide box office gross). Shrek almost made up for this, but the idea that Dreamworks is a “money machine” is factually false. That they are artistically inferior to Pixar is, however, true.