There is no denying the fact that Pixar makes the finest films in the industry today, all of which are bonafide hits. That said, something is amiss.
Finding Nemo, with 860 million $ worldwide, is the only Pixar film in the box office top 20. Next up are The Incredibles and Ratatouille, with 630 and 620 million respectively.
Then, Wall-E- 530 million, Monsters Inc- 525 million, Toy Story 2- 490 million, and so on…you get the drift…
Isn’t it tragic that trash, utter utter trash like Ice Age 2, Kung Fu Panda, Shrek 2 and Shrek 3 is grossing more than our Pixar classics? (I’ll let KFP pass)
The question is- why don’t Pixar films earn as much as they deserve?
One theory is that they are poorly marketed (I hear John Lasseter is investigating this particular issue).
Another is that they deal with offbeat issues that don’t always strike a chord with the audience (this theory is so ridiculous!)
A third segment feels that Pixar needs to go for more commercial cinema (AIEEEAGH! PEPPER MY EYES FOR EVEN SAYING THAT!)
What do you guys think? What is wrong here? How can Pixar ensure that its films truly set the cash registers ringing?
Hmm, that’s interesting. I always figured Pixar films actually did pretty well at box office- and they do, I guess, just perhaps not in comparison to other ‘popular’ animated films. Anyone have any idea how much Ice Age 2 or Shrek 2 or Shrek 3[/i] earned at the box office?
If there is a big gap between what Pixar is earning and what these other films are earning, then there does have to be an explanation for it. The marketing of Pixar films is, I think, an issue even when the film itself is obviously amazing. For whatever reasons, Pixar don’t seem to push their films as much as Dreamworks or other similar companies do. WALL-E is a good example, as although I obviously can’t speak for other countries, it was poorly marketed here and most people I spoke to about it (in particular the children I serve where I work) seemed to know nothing about it. It didn’t seem to be marketed as a film that kids would try and drag their parents to go and see it, and although I can see that Pixar didn’t want it to be a ‘kiddy’ film but something that anyone can watch, it still didn’t have as much of a universal appeal in its advertising. Interesting that John Lasseter is investigating this, though. Pixar films reaching even more people can only be a good thing.
The second point is perhaps valid to a certain extent. Once again, WALL-E is a very good example of this, in that kids could go and see the film and not be able to appreciate everything about it. And then you’ve got the adults who tend to think of animated movies as childish. So in a way, it sort of missed out on both there (though of course, it still made a lot of money). I think WALL-E did strike a chord with the audience, but it was just a bit unexpected as a lot of people would assume that it would’ve been a more childish type film. I don’t think the fact that Pixar’s films are deeper than most of what other film companies have to offer in comparison has much to do with how much the films have earned, though. But I guess the reason sequels like Shrek One Billion exist is because people know what to expect and so they’re quite happy to pay for it (even if it is pretty rubbish in comparison to Pixar faire).
If Pixar ever go for more commercial cinema, I’ll cry. A lot. I’m sure they won’t, though, especially since they have such a great team at the moment and this will hopefully continue for a long time.
Anyway, interesting question, asterixvillochiee! And welcome to the boards!
Don’t forget merchandising too. You didn’t even see Ice Age toys while the movie was out, but there are still Cars and Toy Story merchandise being sold.
Asterixvillochiee: Maybe THIS will change your mind?
And personally, I wouldn’t mind a little competition for Pixar every now and then, they only release one film a year, and besides watching their previous ones again, I’d like to see different kinds of storytelling from other studios. More often than not, though, Pixar will prevail.
Your article only addresses critical success, where, of course, our beloved Pixar has no competition.
I was talking about commercial success.
Look at the box office takings of these three recent Dreamworks films.
Shrek the Third- $794,561,223
Kung Fu Panda- $631,908,951
Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa- $574,403,427
Shrek 3 outgrossed Ratatouille
KFP outgrossed Wall-E
and Madagascar 2 was an added bonus, with no competition with a Pixar film. Dreamworks is certainly more prolific, think about the profits they are making! I also feel sad to think that nice Disney- Disney movies, like Bolt, struggle at the box office.
I assume these are the international box-office takings? Then I guess it’s because the international audience felt it safer to go with sequels than try something new (I’m betting the Chinese market made a huge share of KFP’s profits). The American audience musta been more discerning, cos’ in the Dreamworks Vs Pixar article, both Wall-E and Ratatouille beat their respective competitors.
Your post pointed out a good point, I think Dreamworks also “cheats” by cranking out two films a year instead of Pixar’s one since 2005. So in effect they get double the chances to strike it big at the box-office, and they’re probably release the most animated movies than any other studio, albeit most of them being of mediocre quality.
And yeah, I felt sorry for Bolt too. Few people I know gave it a chance, thinking it was not worth their time. Hopefully they’ll think otherwise when they actually do get down to watching it or with future Disney films.
The first review for dreamworks’ new film, monsters vs aliens has come out, and the reviewer sounds unenthusiastic. I’m so happy! We must keep in mind that when a film is yet to be released, critics tend to not be too harsh on it. This might just mean that MvA is a real disaster! Yippeeeeee!
