The article is about many people in the business worrying about the profit and merchandising opportunity of Up. It has a few interesting things in it, including the approximate budget of the film. And, a special guest…this site!
You can read the article here;
nytimes.com/2009/04/06/busin … gewanted=2
EDIT: I fixed your URL — Rachel. =)
… good article!
Wonder where they got “entertainingly buoyant” from though… doubt they scrubbed the forums to find that 
Haha, that’s brilliant! This site is infecting the world! evil laugh
And my guess is that the quote was taken from the other blog, since I can’t remember anyone on here describing Up as entertainingly buoyant. 
Thanks for the heads up, Bryko614!
Have you heard of the limited edition “WALL-E” Roomba cleaning robot only sold in Japan? news.softpedia.com/news/Roomba-V … 7531.shtml
Well, that’s how it’s done in Japan. It’s more sold to the middle to high end. We still have a middle-class market here and retired folks who have futons full of money.
Why don’t the marketers and manufacturers in Japan view UP first and think of ideas to sell it? (OK, this is also way for me to watch a Pixar film first again and not last on December 19, 2009.) I think the American marketers and manufacturers are tired of leading, so let the Japanese watch first and the American marketers from Tarjet and Wal-Mart perfect the selling. It’s like a role reversal. Usually the Americans start an idea and the Japanese perfect it.
A-woo! That’s pretty cool in my books.
Thanks Disney for the love 
As I said on Upcoming Pixar, I don’t know what some people are so worried about when it comes to stuff like this. I understand that Wall Street traverses the roads of monetary gain, but why does everything have to revolve around finances? It’s the quality that matters, and I highly doubt that the arrow in Pixar’s track record points to “Fail”. Ah well…
That aside, that’s awesome that Pixar Planet was mentioned! 
– Mitch
Wow, Pixar Planet is famous!
That’s awsome! Pixar Planet is in the paper! Maybe any pixar fans who haven’t heard of Pixar Planet will check it out.
And I looked at the other site mentioned, Cinema is Dope, and they have a topic just like this one.
Great article, bryko! I’m glad Pixar likes to ‘hedge their bets’ on riskier endeavours rather than taking the ‘safe route’ like other studios. There’s nothing I love more than punters deriding the film (“A rat in a kitchen? A movie with no dialogue for the first half? There’s no way they can pull that off!”), only to watch their smug grins wiped off their faces when they’re proven wrong come opening weekend.
Some interesting tidbits on the movie too, like [spoil]Carl being a prune ‘addict’ and the pack of talking dogs.[/spoil]
Personally, I’m glad Pixar won’t be doing much merchandising for Up, cos’ as much as we like to collect souvenirs as fans (me being guilty to an extent too), most of the toys and children’s books would end up as waste in the landfills. What matters is the experience we take away from the film. The reason why Pixar sells is because it doesn’t sell out.
Oh, and we’re famous! Hurray!
I love Lasseter’s line: “Quality is the best business plan.”
Great article. And it’s interesting how they themselves say they are selfish… make them for themselves. That means they put extra work into it.
^ Some don’t like that quote, accuse them to be “too overcompensated to care”:
Looking at the numbers, I can totally understand why some people in business circles are worried about Up (limited merchandising potential compared to, say, Cars… worry that an old man as the hero won’t push ticket sales as well, etc). That said, I would heartily like to give them an official Carl “raspberry” – Pppffffptt! Thank goodness Pixar continues to be a studio – even when they’ve made the big time – that doesn’t sacrifice quality for profit. Sure, they could base their films around a hot new toy to sell in WalMart at Christmas. Or they could continue to make films worth of respect, that are both artful and successful.
As far as Pixar Planet being mentioned in the NY Times… Way to go!
Thanks JD for that article ("Does Pixar care about Disney shareholders?") written by that disgruntled shareholder. Obviously, the writing relfects the typical ‘businessman’ mentality: [b:egbzjm1w]Profit[/b:egbzjm1w] before [b:egbzjm1w]Art[/b:egbzjm1w]. While I agree to an extent that art has to be financially viable to be self-sustaining (No one, for example, would want to see a 90-minute film of paint drying, as much as I hope Pixar could pull it off). You have to engage the audience with a captivating story and relatable characters.
Which is exactly why Pixar succeeds both commercially and critically. By not pandering to the lowest common denominator, you stand a better chance of pleasing both the adults and the kids in the audience, who would want to watch a film that is both smart [i:egbzjm1w]and[/i:egbzjm1w] funny. By working outside the Hollywood system of ‘story by committee’ and ‘merchandising potential’, they have become one of the most critically-acclaimed and biggest box-office success stories of this generation. (Yes, so sue me for hyperbole)
Allow me to tear your arguments asunder, Mr Shareholder.
[quote:egbzjm1w]Oh, gee, thanks a lot, you overpaid Pixar punk.[/quote:egbzjm1w]
Well, that was uncalled for. I’m sure you’re bitter that a ‘cartoon’ film director earns more moolah than your income as an online finance commentator, but that’s no reason to be calling each other names, is it?
[quote:egbzjm1w]Hey, I’m not down on quality, but I really don’t think it’s so awful to do some research on an idea to see what its chances might be from both a creative standpoint and a merchandising angle[/quote:egbzjm1w].
Well, I think you are. Probably it wouldn’t hurt to do a little pre-emptive ‘strategirisationing’. But you’d darn well better not let the merchandising profitability influence the story decisions (ie "I think we need to give the character bigger eyes, because market research shows that’s what attracts pre-teen anime fans nowadays").
[quote:egbzjm1w]One thing we all need to remember is that Disney paid billions for Pixar a few years back.[/quote:egbzjm1w]
Obviously because Disney dug themselves into a hole first with pointless sequels and mediocre films. They desperately needed someone to save them, and quite literally paid the price. If they didn’t like the deal, they could always refuse it.
[quote:egbzjm1w]Then again, they won the lottery. They’re richer than most of us will ever be. Seriously, I don’t blame them for not caring. They’re like CEOs. They’re too overcompensated to care, too. Actually, they’re better off than CEOs. The Pixar people are overpaid, and they don’t have to deal with all the pressures of the business. [/quote:egbzjm1w]
Do you even know Pixar’s history? They had a pretty humble (and crappy) beginning before becoming the ‘megalomaniacal’ studio they are today. I’m sure Mr Lasster and Co. are fat-cats living the ‘high-life’ (which is true to an extent, I mean Mr Lasster has his own railway locomotive!), but they didn’t rob a bank or siphon investor’s money (at least, to my knowledge) to get there.
Sometimes, you just have to leave it to the pros. I appreciate artistic integrity (even if it means the risk of reduced profit margins) than ‘selling out’ to the next line of commercial child goods.
BTW, have a look at readers’ comments below his article. They pretty much share my exact sentiments.
Here are other retorts on the NY Times article, courtesy of [b:egbzjm1w]Wall-E Dragon[/b:egbzjm1w] and [b:egbzjm1w]Dolly Levi[/b:egbzjm1w] of Wall-E Forums. Have fun reading, folks!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-g ... 83636.html http://blog.spout.com/2009/04/06/pixars ... ry-040609/ http://myadversaria.com/2009/04/06/up-down/