this is all bull. still another negative article just like the ones for cars
it was not about advertsing, it was about timing. It was a bad release date
Cars was a much easier sell. Ratatouille didn't have the sell that could be one sentence. Rats in the kitchen is the hook, but its not a great one. I'm super excited for Wall E and I think robots are an easier sell than rats. $200 million is an artificial blockbuster number, I don't hear that being the sign of a blockbuster on movie sites or anything. I also think Enchanted isn't going to do very well, about $150 million tops.
Earlier this sumer, readers of this site and others came up with many effective advertising and marketing ideas after 10 minutes of thought - by and large all better than what the vaunted Disney Co marketing team accomplished.
The picture says it all - "Win a trip to New York City." Huh? Why not a trip to Oregon? Last I checked, the movie was set in Paris, and Disney Co has a few hotels and theme parks that could use a few extra bodies onsite. Great attention to detail, marketing department.
Gotta love the whiny source though. "Well they think they can do sooooooo much better than us." This guy must be related to "we can't market it since we weren't there when it got greenlit." It isn't really a matter of Pixar knowing better - most anyone on the street would know better. Disney Co marketing didn't get as strong an opening for Pirates 3 as Pirates 2. Underdog didn't even open. So to recap, Disney Co marketing can't market a film with good reviews, bad reviews, or mediocre reviews.
"Holding those sneak previews two weeks out." Very cutting edge. Studios have only been doing that for maybe five decades now.
"Spent that money the way we did." That's the point - the private parties and inflatable slide didn't cause a blip on the summer radar. Hope someone in the marketing department enjoyed that money. The Simpsons marketing team spent less money and got far more attention.
"We put together the best possible campaign that we could for 'Ratatouille'." If that marketing guy really believes that, he needs to resign and leave the marketing industry. Even if you only took an introductory level marketing class, you couldn't say that sentence with a straight face. The saddest part is - this guy shows that it's still very much Pixar vs Disney Co instead of any sort of synergy or cooperation. Who's job would it be to see that these two divisions play nice? I believe that would be the CEO's responsibility, and he doesn't seem to want to get involved.
Could it maybe be because Ratatouille just wasnt that good? I've seen several PIXAR films in the theatre-some I've liked,some I've not. I didnt even bother to go see Ratatouille. Nothing about this film engaged my interest-not the plot,not the talent,not the trailer,NOTHING. WALL-E,however,is still a year away and I cant wait to see it. I hit the Buy n Large website almost daily. And unless the film is really,really awful I'll probably be buying one of those oddly cute robot toys thats sure to be flooding shelves next summer. I havent looked fwd to a PIXAR film this much since The Incredibles. Its not a case of PIXAR sucks or PIXAR rules....its just a simple fact that not every movie they make is going to resonate with audiences the same way.
$200,000,000 Ratatouille vs
$135,386,665 Chicken Little
$50,030,461 Home on the Range
$85,336,277 Brother Bear
I take it that the people who are complaining have short memories.
"rufus3698 said:
$85,336,277 Brother Bear"
So, it's come to this...cherry-picking other underperforming/bad, flicks? This indeed may be the beginning of the end....wow.
AGAIN, Jim Hill is misrepresenting facts, this time in his comparisions between The Simpson Movie and Ratatouille.
Remember back a few weeks when Hill crowed about how The Simpson Movie is "on track to blow right past the $188.2 million that "Ratatouille" has earned to date during its stateside run sometime over the next three weeks" (http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2007/08/06/monday-mouse-watch-why-all-the-dough-that-the-simpsons-movie-is-earning-is-making-disney-pixar-executives-say-d-oh.aspx). With Ratatouille showing FAR stronger legs than TSM, that turned out to be biased and wishful thinking on Hill's part and completely inaccurate. In fact, TSM will likely not even reach that $188.2 million that Ratatouille had earned (and handily surpassed) at that point. He FINALLY writes - in a minor aside - that that isn't going to happen, but never admits how wrong HE was.
But now he goes FURTHER in declaring The Simpsons Movie the WINNER of the overseas race with $291 million vs Ratatouille's $172 million to date. He CONVENIENTLY fails to mention the fact that Ratatouille began most of its overseas run later than TSM, and unlike TSM has not yet opened in such major markets as UK, Australia, and Germany.
Hill employed the very same dishonest tactics with incomplete statistics when blasting Cars last year. Citing the "to-date" overseas figure of $128.1 million - and failing to state clearly that the release was still in its middle stages - he labeled Cars the "poorest performing Pixar production (at least with overseas audiences)" (http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2006/08/13/4950.aspx). In actually, it went on to earn $116 million MORE money and ended up being in the MIDDLE of the pack of Pixar movies' overseas grosses. I am still waiting for Hill's retraction.
Yes, The Simpsons Movie outperformed its expectations and yes, Ratatouille has underperformed in relation to other Pixar movies domestically. The reasons for that are open for HONEST debate. But Ratatouille MAY or may NOT surpass the Simpsons internationally. In the same way that Hill's previous articles were distortions, this article calls the race before it is over.
If we are to believe what we read in Hill's writings, we have to consider the veracity of the source. To paraphrase Jim Hill himself, "we're not talking about the REAL world here, folks;" we're talking about JIM HILL's world.
The least you can say is that Jim Hill is consistent. Even when "Ratatouille" eventually bests "Cars" in worldwide gross (given the terribly competitive market this year) you can be assured that he will find something negative to say about Pixar. He will never concede that Pixar is the probably the most successful movie studio in history, as well as the most consistently praised one.
The only thing predictable about the JHM website, is the barrage of "comments" about how predictable he is... and how he "misrepresents" facts! This is just too much fun, Jim. "It's just Showbiz, baby"!
And here's this Disney marketing exec whining about how Pixar claims they can do a better marketing job than them. You know what, it isn't just Pixar. Anybody with a brain and a love for Pixar's films could pull out a better campaign than Disney did. A "big cheese" tour? A promo with Intel? What the heck was that? A trip for 2 to NYC with a couple of show tickets? That honestly costs ZILCH in the overall scheme of a campaign. As curmudgeon said, so many of JHM's readers came up with outstanding ideas earlier this summer. It really isn't that hard. And looking at that Top 10 BO chart, Disney has THREE films in the top 10, three films that grossed $160+ million in the first half of the year. Other studios would kill for that.
A correction - Cars went on to earn almost $90 million more internationally for a total of $217,898,393. My math was off (sorry), but still, it was significantly more than the "to date" $128 million Jim Hill cited.
From the vault:
//According to information that studio insiders have shared with me, this Brad Bird movie should only earn $150 - $170 million during its entire domestic run.//
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2007/06/24/monday-mouse-watch-could-underwhelming-box-office-receipts-for-ratatouille-really-spell-trouble-for-disney-pixar-officials.aspx
After that, basically, today's story comes across as a "Yes, but..." As in "Yes, Ratatouille has exceeded those expectations I put so much faith in, but I'm still right, because..."
As for comments from people such as Bobbydafan complaining about complainers, I simply say this: Who watches the watchmen?
Sometimes, it's important to look at more than what is presented since, often, the whole picture isn't being presented. As many of the comments here have demonstrated, Jim can be fairly selective about the type of information he presents, and if he likes to position himself as a sort-of Disney watchdog, it's important to have other people watching him to show the other side.
The fact of the matter is that this has been a huge summer, with a lot of tentpole releases; most people would have looked at the list of releases and figured out in advance that Ratatouille (which really isn't an "event" flick, nor is it a part of a franchise) didn't stand much of a chance of being in the top 5.
And personally? I'm not sure if Enchanted will be a slam dunk either, but I'd prefer to wait and see instead of forecasting expectations, since here's no way to know how a movie will perform until there are people in the seats.
Moving on...
rufus3698 said this:
//$200,000,000 Ratatouille vs
I take it that the people who are complaining have short memories.//
This prompted Bobbydafan to say this:
//So, it's come to this...cherry-picking other underperforming/bad, flicks? This indeed may be the beginning of the end....wow.//
If comparing box office receipts is the beginning of the end, well, this site started that trend quite a while ago. But let's take Rufus' post and expand it.
Ratatouille has, to date, has a domestic gross just north of $200 million (Box Office Mojo is saying $201,093,000 currently). When is the last time a Disney flick (excluding Pixar releases & DisneyToon Studios flicks) has earned that?
Well, let's work backwards, ok? And let's go all the way back to the Little Mermaid.
(Note that Meet the Robinsons may still be playing in a small handful of theatres)
Meet the Robinsons (2007): $97,801,126
Chicken Little (2005): $135,386,665
Home on the Range (2004): $50,030,461
Brother Bear (2003): $85,336,277
Treasure Planet (2002): $38,176,783
Lilo & Stitch (2002): $145,794,338
Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001): $84,056,472
The Emperor's New Groove (2000): $89,302,687
Dinosaur (2000): $137,748,063
Fantasia 2000 (2000): $60,655,420
Tarzan (1999): $171,091,819
Mulan (1998): $120,620,254
Hercules (1997): $99,112,101
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996): $100,138,851
Pocahontas (1995): $141,579,773
The Lion King (1994): $312,855,561 (with re-releases: $328,541,776)
Aladdin (1992): $217,350,219
Beauty and the Beast (1991): $145,863,363 (with re-releases: $171,350,553)
The Rescuers Down Under (1990): $27,931,461
The Little Mermaid (1989): $84,355,863 (with re-releases: $111,543,479)
Of course, the numbers aren't adjusted for inflation, but still, I have to wonder...why push the panic button on a movie that makes "only" $200 million when the last non-Pixar Disney release to cross that mark was The Lion King (back in 1994)?
What I wonder is, did the panic button get pushed after the Lion King, when everything else failed to live up to the large shadow it cast?
Essentially, Finding Nemo is Pixar's Lion King, only Disney seems to have had a much sharper drop-off in numbers after Lion King.
Sometimes, it's hard to say why an audience connects with certain movies and not other movies; it's just something that happens. Audiences truly connected with Lion King and Nemo, and those became benchmarks that were tough to follow.
It's been a long time since Disney had an animated film top $200 million. I guess I just can't see why these "insiders" are so unenthusiastic about Ratatouille doing decent business, unless it really is some form of resentment or something like that.
Unfortunately, the thing that seems to get lost in all of this number-related talk is the issue of quality; Ratatouille was a great film, as were a number of the movies I've listed that failed to make $200 million (I guess I'm with Eisner, as I'm one of the folks who absolutely adores Hunchback). Both Disney and Pixar have produced many hours of quality entertainment that will entertain for years to come, and that's good enough for me.
I think the marketing was excellent and really this year was packed with competition as noticable by PotC:AWE's profits.
It was easily the best of the spring 3rd sequal releases... yet it did not make as much. Why? Well Spiderman had 2 weeks all to itself before Shrek would come out and start snatching away box office receits. Shrek was still only battling Spiderman 3 and well.. a lot of people had seen that movie enough already.. and then comes PotC:AWE. Since it was battling Spiderman and Shrek in the first couple of weeks it did not do so well.
As far as total gross goes I can pretty much guarantee you the only reason why Pirates was out done was simply because the first two opening weeks were not strong enough to top Spiderman or Shrek. Though as far as following weeks go I think it did better, but not good enough to make up for it's lack of opening weekend.
Now factor for Ratatouille that when it opened it was still dealing with Pirates and Shrek the 3rd... well it's no wonder why opening weekend wasn't strong. Then came the megablockbuster Transformers and Harry Potter and hell it's no wonder as to why Ratatouille struggled in the box office.
IT's a very sweet film grant it. I saw it twice but it just was nothing special compared to the other list of movies out there. I would have rather seen Transformers again or Harry Potter (which I still have not been able to see even though I work at a freaking movie theater) or Knocked up.
Pixar should be greatful it recieved what it did. THe movie really shouldn't have made that much money but I think marketing busted their ass on this one and it payed off some what.
The comments from the insider you spoke with, Jim, made me laugh. "Ratatouille" is a great movie, and it's doing well. They need to stop whining. I think the marketing campaign was great. I know that my uncle & aunt in-law don't want to see "Ratatouille" because it features rats in the kitchen. My husband & I have told them that it's such a great movie. Some people don't care, I guess.
The 9-minute sneak peak, as well as the Disney Channel Movie Surfers sneak peaks, really were such great marketing tools. I don't know why anyone is complaining. This was a summer full of big movies. "Ratatouille" sure did better than so many other movies released this summer.
Curmudgeon said:
<"The Simpsons marketing team spent less money and got far more attention.">
Yeah, but "The Simpsons" has such a huge fanbase already, whereas "Ratatouille" had all-new characters.
It seems to me, having finally just seen the movie, that Ratatouille was mis-marketed to an extent - but even correctly marketing it wouldn't have saved it.
The movie will resonate strongly with pretty much one crowd - elitist intellectuals, who can sympathize with Remy's drive for perfection at the expense of family. It is not, largely speaking, a kid's movie, although the frantic action sequences that occasionally punctuate the long stretches of dialog and inaction allow previews to SUGGEST that it's a kid movie, and the existence of these sequences can convince some of the target audience that the movie isn't really theirs. (A lot of the kids in theater I was in were getting seriously antsy about 60% of the way through the film)
But elitist intellectuals don't make movies into blockbusters, while families do. So for the movie to have had any marketing success, it may have HAD to be mismarketed to an extent.
I firmly suspect Wall-E will be an unmitigated disaster. I love Pixar, but I have less than no desire to see this movie, and it looks doubtful that they'll be able to sell this movie as anything but a Kubrick-type fringe film.
Honestly, Jim, enough is enough. Aside from 300, all of the top grossing films this year are established franchises. That Ratatouille managed to pull in $200 million domestically in this competitive season is still pretty damn impressive, especially considering the amount of naysayers who were proclaiming that it would barely break $100 million before it opened.
And you know what? This is one of the best reviewed movies of the year, if not the best reviewed. At this point, it is a virtual lock for the Best Animated Feature Oscar. It will certainly sell a lot of DVDs. This is a movie that will stand the test of time, not just fade away like umpteen other CGI features the studios keep pumping out. I am glad to see Pixar trying to put a little originality into their films and take some risks...not just put out films with burping and farting animals like every other studio seems to do.
Fully expected JHM to rain on this parade.
But wow. I'm in complete shock - because I actually don't disagree with everything Jim says in this, his predictable Pixar bashing column.
Yes, the marketing wasn't great, but it was not that bad. I agree, Pixar should be thankful this film made $200M this summer. Too much competition, it wasn't a sequel, and it's about rats. $200M is great.
My guess is that the artists don't care one way or another. And if it's true about Pixar pointing fingers at Disney's marketing, my guess is it would Pixar's suits doing that. I seriously don't see Brad Bird and John Lasseter pounding their fists on the table saying, "it took us 65 days to get to $200M??!!? What went wrong??!?!"
This totally sounds like something only the accountants would worry about.
Jim, I've been a big fan of yours for years and love your site, but I have to ask you, when did you and Al Lutz change bodies? Seriously, and I've said this before, I work on Wall Street, and Ratatouille landed almost EXACTLY where analysts expected and given the money the film will bring in through theaters, DVD sales, theme park tie-ins, etc., they're reasonably happy with the way things turned out.
To be sure this wasn't a glowing and unadulerated success for Disney/Pixar and there are legitmate gripes one can make about the film's performance. But come on! What you've written reads like it came from a politician. You cherry pick out the negative aspects of the story (sometimes inaccurately and often telling half the story, as was pointed out repeatedly above) and ignore the positive. Your endless negative comparisons to the Simpsons being a prime example.
The Jim of old would have written stories about how Ratatouille came into being, how the idea was born and developed and how Disney, as we speak, is developing rides for the Studios and DCA. Instead we were told the film was "cute", how Brad Bird had to try to save this turkey and then distance himself from hit and what a flop it is.
Jim, please Pixar bash when warrnated. Your loyal readers expect no less. But provide a balanced picture of the situation.
I do agree that Ratatouille, while still being a blockbuster at 200 million, is still a disappointment. However, this is the first time I personally see that Pixar hate everyone talks about. Yes, Ratatouille didn't live up to the previous pixar film's box offices but what movie this summer did? All three of the big threequels didn't live up to their predecessors, in fact they were all 100 million from the highest grossing film in their respective series's. Harry Potter should just match the gross of the previous installment, still way behind the highest grossing. The Simpsons Movie's legs are shorter than Harry Ploppers. Rush Hour 3 will end it's domestic run in line with the first one but still well behind the second. Bourne did amazing. Evan Almighty was a mighty flop. Die Hard 4.0 is the lowest grossing film in the series. The only huge movie that wasn't a disappointment was Transformers and it didn't have anything to live up to.
Not to mention your little bit on the Top 5. For starters no Pixar movie, with the exception of Finding Nemo, would be in the top 5 this year. Don't talk about inflation because bootlegs and the raising quality of home theaters is a handicap the others didn't have.
Jim's point is what it always is "Disney paid too much for Pixar". But as others pointed out, Disney hasn't had a hit on the level of this film in a long time. Basically, what Jim is showing us is that a considerable chunk of Disney executives are pissed off that Disney bought Pixar at all. Why? Because the Pixar team IS better at what they do than the Disney people are. And not just in terms of animated fair. These are the same people that brought us DCA, and allowed DL and WDW to deteriorate in the name of maximizing profit. If I were Bob Eiger, I would hunt down every person that leaks to Jim and fire them. These sources indicate a very poinsoned culture at Disney right now, and if it isn't addressed, things are going to get very ugly for our favorite company.
Jim:
Thanks for the insights on how Hollywood thinks (or fails to, as several bloggers have pointed out). I enjoyed the opening metric presenting 'Cars' tied as Pixar's third-most-successful movie as much as Beezelbub is enjoying his snow cone right now.
I think it's time to remember that this movie was basically in the dumpster before it was transferred to Brad Bird's direction. I think $200M looks pretty good compared to $0M, and the production costs up to that point would have been a complete loss. Measured from the point where Brad Bird took control, it was a smashing success in every way.
Pixar has well earned the right to sometimes turn out first-rate movies that do not break box-office records. As for the suits (should they actually exist) that insist that EVERY Pixar movie must be an overwhelming financial bonanza , they must be blissfully unaware that every other production company has real dogs of movies that don't even come close to covering production costs. I'm pretty sure Pixar has never lost money on a movie. Any accountant who can't love that needs to change careers.
The marketing problem? No Happy Meal toys.
I, for one, would have loved to see Rats in a box of McDonalds food.
(*Yawn*).
From the article:
We put together the best possible campaign that we could for 'Ratatouille.' Sure, this movie got great reviews. But this was a very difficult picture to ***sell during an incredibly competitive summer***. To be honest, we're lucky that this movie did as well as it did.
There's the answer for everything that ails you (and anyone wondering why Rat was not in the top 5).
lurch said:
Jim's point is what it always is: "Disney paid too much for Pixar". But as others pointed out, Disney hasn't had a hit on the level of this film in a long time. Basically, what Jim is showing us is that a considerable chunk of Disney executives are pissed off that Disney bought Pixar at all. Why? Because the Pixar team IS better at what they do than the Disney people are. And not just in terms of animated fair. These
are the same people that brought us DCA, and allowed DL and WDW to deteriorate in the name of maximizing profit. If I were Bob Eiger, I would hunt down every person that leaks to Jim and fire them. These sources indicate a very poisoned culture at Disney right now, and if it isn't addressed, things are going to get very ugly for our favorite company.
........................................................................................................................
Bravo Lurch!
I think that the execs at Disney who like to point fingers at Pixar are the ones who cheapen the company and work their hardest to crumble away the Disney credibility that John Lasseter has reigned in and built up for the company with his quality level and experience. Disney bought Pixar for a reason and I think the best benefit besides having access to all sorts of Pixar Characters, was some restored quality and credibility.
These execs working "for" Disney (more like against Disney) think that because they work for Mouse that they immediately earn the experience that genius's in the past created for them to have. These execs are spit...not even a tiny spec in the eyes of anyone who knows whose characters they deal with-- whose classic and timeless stories they generate mindless sequel after sequel after sequel with--and continually drag an honorable name through the mud alongside them for a quick dollar. These people make me SICK! This sort of thing really makes me agree with Lurch here and say "FIRE THEM NOW!!!" if you agree, then let it be known that you want quality verses quantity...you want excellence and not status quo that we need a John Lasseter to bring back the shine to this tarnished name... I really urge any Disney execs reading this...because I know you and Jim are( probably together)... to GO FIRE YOURSELVES! If anyone agrees with me please let us Disney and Jim know!
Instidude your post just made my day! That just cracked me up!
As far as Disney/Pixar complaining about each other, that just makes me sad. I mean, sometimes movies don't sell well. This was an extremely competitve summer. The suits need to get over it and stop pointing fingers. I read something interesting on www.doombuggies.com. It was an interview with Rolly Crump. In it he states that part of the reason why he eventually left Disney was the politics.
In the case at hand the politics involves business wanting an instant return on the investment. It's what one might call the "McDonalds generation." You know what I mean: "I want it and I want it now!" attitude that we have been taught. Unfortunaltely that's not the way the real world always works.
I don't think that Disney could have done a better job promoting Ratatoullie. It was just a very competitive summer and that's life. Now stop complaining and get back to work on upcoming releases. And please play nicely with each other. And remember to have fun doing what you do. You folks are Disney and or Pixar! you should be having fun doing what you do.
When someone can explain to me why a studio who is releasing a movie about the love of fine cooking can't manage to get an ad on the Food Network (a network they already do business with multiple times a years)....well, when someone can explain that to me, then I'll consider the possibility that Disney's marketing department isn't virtually worthless.
These articles just get more and more idiotic.
Somehow it's a big deal that it didn't make top five in a year that had sequels to four of the biggest franchises of all time? A year that has had FOUR films break 300M, a first I believe. Especially when if you look at the other pixar numbers - if any of the other pixar films had been released this year and made what they made, they wouldn't have made the top five either!
I'll also point out (again) that Ratatouille has beaten every other CGI release from another studio but the Shrek films. That's somehow a failure?
And the overseas comparison to Simpsons is bogus as well. Ratatouille hasn't been released in a number of the biggest BO countries of the world like the UK, germany, and Australia. The only major market Ratatouille has opened in where the Simpsons has not is Japan.
If you only compare countries where both have opened, both movies have made almost exactly the same overseas (actually, looking again, Ratty seems to have a small lead, although my additions weren't exact). Simpsons has generally done better in latin america, and Ratatouille has generally done better in europe.
Simpsons will do well in Japan. But Ratatouille will do extremely well in germany, italy, and the UK. Not to mention that Simpsons has performed in a similar pattern to here, big openings and big drops. Ratatouille has had better legs, meaning as time goes on it will keep making money while Simpsons fizzles out.
Just compare the two overseas, see how many countries Ratatouille is ahead in, and in many cases it leads even though it was released later there.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=ratatouille.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=simpsons.htm
Simpsons is a movie based on one of the longest running prime time shows ever. Of course it is going to do extremely well. Shouldn't it be able to beat a new property with no previous reputation? So what went wrong with Simpsons?
And I just don't buy the "everyone is trying to figure out what went wrong" crap. If before the movie was released, everyone was saying it would be lucky to make 150 domestic, shouldn't they be asking what went RIGHT?
This ongoing tirade seems like a kid who gets all A plusses in school, and when he finally gets an A, dad beats him.
Honestly, I think the problem with Ratatouille is it just didn't fit in any niche very well. I mean really ... it's a movie about a rat that cooks. How do you sell that???
Was it a good movie? Yeah, it was good. Was it my absolute LEAST favorite Pixar movie to date? Yes, by FAR. That's why it didn't do that well at the box office ... it was weird.
Actually, Jim is starting to convert me a little with some of his "Disney overpaid for Pixar" talk ... I mean this movie was weird, Wall-E sounds even weirder ... and although I don't remember what their next film after that is supposed to be, I do remember looking at it and thinking (ready for it?), "That looks weird."
I'm not entirely sure the Pixar guys aren't moving too far away from the mainstream with their films. I mean cooking rats and fat humans floating on couches while robots clean up the Earth? That's out there, man. Are kids really gonna wanna see this stuff?
"Could it maybe be because Ratatouille just wasnt that good?"
While you're entitled to your opinion, the critics disagreed, making it one of the best reviewed films of the year. It's a no brainer pick for the animation oscar as well.
"cherry-picking other underperforming/bad, flicks?"
OK, so cherry pick some that did better than Ratatouille. I'll make it simple for you...Ratatouille made more money than every animated disney movie but Lion King and Aladdin.
"Ratatouille didn't live up to the previous pixar film's box offices..."
Correction: it didn't live up to previous DOMESTIC box office. Worldwide, it still has a good shot at beating Cars. And the latest Potter movie did well, not a disappointment at all. It will soon be #2 for the series and is already within 10% of the highest domestically. It's already #2 worldwide and still has a chance of beating the first one.
>>> That's why it didn't do that well at the box office ... it was weird.
Actually, Jim is starting to convert me a little with some of his "Disney overpaid for Pixar" talk ... <<<
And here's why Jim's overly-negative spin about Pixar's latest performances irks a lot of us. Because it potentially "converts" others when the information is spun the way Jim and his contacts want.
"Didn't do well at the box office?" $200 million domestic, and most likely $450 million - $500 million overseas is considered "not doing well" at the box office?
Congratulations, Jim. You're starting to make people see things your way.
You've finally convinced me Jim.
Pixar is the worst movie studio ever. Bob should be fired immediately for the unforgivable error of purchasing this turkey. In his place, all of Disney marketing should be hired to run the company. Those folks are infallible. I'm actually thinking of starting a new religion that worships them, it will be called "Pointed Fingers".
All of the Pixar themed rides should be immediately removed, and yes, I know that that is pretty much EVERY new ride that has been put in recently, but who cares? Why promote failures? Where is my Pocohontas Island? My Atlantis Submarine? My Underdog RollerCoaster? My Home on the Range Dark Ride? My Brother Bear Jamboree? My Meet the Robinsons Rocket Rods?
Pixar.... humph! Who makes a movie about a Rat the cooks? I bet their next movie will be about a Mouse that pilots a steamboat. Idiots!!!
Now, if you'll excuse me... I have to go. I'm seeing Underdog for the 6th time and I need time to go purchase more Underdog merchandise and apparel. Can anyone tell me where I can pre-order the dvd? I need about 10 to send to friends and family. It's a classic!
I wonder if Disney still had their Happy Meal deal with McDonalds if the movie would have done better. Simpsons had tons of advertising with Burger King. Shrek had McDonalds. I think Disney needs some kind of advertising at a restaurant chain. Meet the Robinsons would have been greatly helped with Happy Meal toys.
And why can't Pixar make "weird" movies?
Does the prospect of making a movie that performs less than stellar stop Lucas? Spielberg? Scorsese? Woody Allen? Heck .... did it stop Walt Disney?
Is James Cameron a complete failure because the last four movies he has put out were documentaries that combined have probably made .01% the profit that Titanic has?
Take the second highest grossing movie of the year. Shrek 3 .... there hasn't been a day that goes by where I don't think about or say to someone what an utterly crappy movie I thought that was. I saw "The Last Legion" this past weekend. Someone asked me this morning at work what I thought of it. My answer ... "It was better than Shrek 3". Only slightly less of a disappointment was Spiderman 3 ... the biggest movie of this year .... just awful. I have seen Stardust, Sunshine, Bourne, Die Hard, Rush Hour 3, Fantastic Four etc ... ALL of them are better movies than Spiderman was.
The point.... I am not interested in hearing about the marketing stuff. I'm glad someone is sitting in a room somewhere pleased with themselves about how they fooled the majority of the world to invest their $10 just because one could reasonably expect that if parts 1 and 2 were good, that a trend would continue. Fact is ... Spiderman 3 and Shrek 3 SUCKED. ... regardless of how much money they made.
I guarantee that Spiderman 4 and Shrek 4 will not even come close to that kind of money again ... because of the utter letdown their respective part 3s were. This is the same thing that hurt Star Wars Episode 2 and 3 and why The Phantom Menace, while the worst of the three, still made the most money.
Fact is .... Ratatouille may not be a super blockbuster... but it is reputation picture. Studios need a movie to get good reviews and win awards .... this is in the end what will bring more people to the NEXT Pixar/Disney film. People will see the DVD and realize they missed something special on the big screen. The Pixar / and now Disney reputation will be preserved.
A great story and great marketability are not always the same thing. To me, this was more like a 'The Little Movie that Could' than a big summer spectacle movie, like say the Incredibles. Keep in mind that by referring to it as 'little' I don't mean the quality of the movie. (I personally thought it was good if not quite great, but no matter.)
I think the sneaks and web preview clip were the right thing to do to build up word-of-mouth, and $200 million for a story about a rat cook is pretty good.
It's hard enough to create a great, original story, without also simultaneously worrying about its mega-box office potential. When par is hitting $200 million in 30 days or so, that's a pretty high mark to try to hit every time out. OTOH, the price tag for Pixar was pretty high as well. I don't know how Pixar's 'mission' is defined- is it simply to create great stories, and let Disney figure out the marketing? Or are they supposed to deliver great stories that also are clearly big summer event movies, the kind that are clearly on the leader board by the end of the year?
I'm actually hopeful that Wall*E will have more box office potential. It's a space/sci-fi story, that will hopefully look epic in the trailers (even with the somewhat downbeat setting.) Wall*E looks potentially cuter as a Disney character than Remy, even if Wall*E doesn't talk. But I'm just speculating, since we haven't seen too much about the movie yet.
You know if all the people who complain about Jim's articles do not like them there is an easy solution: Do. Not. Read. Them. Jim has the right to write whatever he wants. Even if his manipulating the facts (and I am not saying he does) so what?
Look guys at the end of the day, and no offense to Jim, this is little website just doing it's own thing. I will be shocked if it turns out anything Jim has ever written has significantly affected any of Pixar box offices one way or the other.
I love this website and if happen to read something I don't like I shrug my shoulders and move on. If Jim puts up an article I am personally not intrested in (which happens often like the series about B & B on Broadway) I don't complain and knash my teeth. I just don't read. And if I do feel strongly about something I try and post it in a civilized manner once and not go on and on about. Like how I try to defend Jim every six months or so.
The only bashing I see going on around here is of Jim. If you don't like the job he is doing than by all means start up a we hate Jim site of your own and have at it. Otherwise enough please.
In case you haven't notice over the last couple years, yours complaints are amounting to white noise and these days. They certaintly are not causing Jim to 'see the light' as it were. Nobody who vists this site has any right to tell Jim how run HIS site. You can complain and suggest all you want but can not demand. I'm talking to you Greenyskp. I try to ignore all this rigamarole but sometimes it just gets to me and I can not hold it in any longer.
So yes I suppose you can keep complaining till the end of time. That IS your right. But why on earth would you bother. Life is two short. Personally Jim I love this sight and I hope on doing what makes you happy. Thanks for the years of enjoyement and here is looking forward to many more.
I've wondered why there hasn't been any mention that Ratatouille broke all the records for an animated movie in France-- it did considerably better than Finding Nemo.
http://animatedfilms.suite101.com/article.cfm/ratatouille_rocks_france
I mean, isn't that quite an achievement? Considering how few European markets in which Rat has opened, it seems to be doing just fine.
I was underwhelmed by the marketing. I drove past the dreaded "He'd Dying to be a Chef" bus advert on my way home from work every day and based on those slapstick heavy trailers and posters I was so surprised and delighted at the elegance and sophistication of the film. Granted, I may be one of those "elitist intellectuals" mentioned by an earlier poster. :)
Back to responsibility of Pixar for the box office of its movies. If Pixar simply needs to create great stories for a wide audience, then I think they did absolutely fine with Ratatouille. The box office was good and not a disaster. But if their mission is to create a summer tentpole movie every time out, the a story about a rat that cooks gets dismissed in the brainstorming stages, and they end up going with something else instead. Something more marketable, and hopefully just as good as well. Who knows.
Personally, I'd like the see Pixar have the room to be able to experiment a little too, rather than go to the opposite extreme and just crank out safe sequels. Maybe if they increased their production output a bit, they could have a little more room in this regard (with some lower budget releases.) It is evident that Disney is counting on the Pixar magic to give a boost to its box office (both CGI and traditional animated.)
I'm not finished....
The worst part ... all of these "bad" excuses for well made movies that literally everyone and their mothers are tricked ... uh ... "marketed" into seeing?
THIS is partly what is causing the demise of the industry as a whole. Yes ... it was announced today that this is the best year ever for the industry. Good ... but NO thanks to the top two movies... I’ll tell you that.
Personally, I'm glad Ratatouille wasn't marketed in a desperate manner (think Meet The Robinsons). I went because I heard that the animation was at the next level ... period. What I got was a great, heartfelt, more "adult" cartoon that actually had charm and reminded of some Disney classics from long ago.
Fact is ... Disney is on the same bandwagon that Dreamworks, Sony, and everyone else making CGI films is. Zany, Looney tunes type comedy with nothing but pop music and pop culture references throughout. PIXAR is not on this bandwagon. To DreamWorks credit ... the original Shrek defines this type of film... and is still the best. Pixar doesn't need to go there, nor do they want to. They define something else. They are not Katzenberg, they do not feel they need to be Katzenberg, and GOOD for them. The suits still harboring this grudge need to get over it.
If Enchanted looks and feels like a Disney classic ... it will be one ... if it looks and feels like WB, Dreamworks, or Fox ... it wont be. Its that simple.
Frankly, the last Pixar film I really truly loved was "Monsters Inc.". "Cars' was too high-concept and "Ratatouille", while cute, just didn't have enough laughs IMO. Sometimes I wonder if Pixar is getting to be a little...boutique-y, if you get my drift...
"You know if all the people who complain about Jim's articles do not like them there is an easy solution: Do. Not. Read. Them. Jim has the right to write whatever he wants."
You know if all the people who complain about the posts complaining about Jim's articles do not like them there is an easy solution: Do. Not. Read. Them. People posting comments have the right to write whatever they want.
In my opinion all the marketing in the world couldn't have helped this movie. I think the subject matter---a rat who cooks---isn't the easiest thing to market anyway. They made the rats as cute as possible, but I believe some people just find it gross. They were really lucky this film received so much praise, because if it weren't for that I really think this movie would have done horrible.
coolbeans - POTC:AWE has not been "out done" by any movie so far. It's current worldwide gross is $959,257,100.00, which makes it the top grossing film of 2007. It didn't break the billion dollar mark like POTC:DMC, but DMC had less competition.
Mindbender said
"You know if all the people who complain about the posts complaining about Jim's articles do not like them there is an easy solution: Do. Not. Read. Them. People posting comments have the right to write whatever they want."
You know if you actually read my post you would notice I said the exact same thing. Normally I do not read the crap you idiots spouse. My main point was that this has gone beyond just complaining and entered the relm of demanding. And that just pisses me off. Sorry but I am done being even remotely polite. But hey thanks for the constructive post. Your well thought out and wrtten point certainly put me in my place. Hey whatever. I have got it out of my system and I can now go back to doing what I should have done all along: ignoring the ungrateful and self righteous morons who are posting on this site. After all that certainly seems to be what Jim is doing. If its good enough for him... Thanks for the laughs. I now return to reading the comments of those who have intelligent points to add to a discussion.
By the way Kimann you raise a great point. I have a good friend who loves everything animation and especially Pixar who has no intention of ever seeing Ratatouille. She is terrified of rats you see and honestly considering even I was little freaked by an early scene in the film (the one where the rats fall through the celing) I can not blaim her.
FYI, the imdb daily news is quoting this article. Not a wise move on their part, methinks.
"I have got it out of my system and I can now go back to doing what I should have done all along: ignoring the ungrateful and self righteous morons who are posting on this site."
On behalf of us morons, I thank you. Let's hope you keep that promise.
You know what the most dangerous thing about Jim is? It's the fact that the mainstream media (of which I am a member) are too lazy to do thorough reporting, so Jim's not-even-half-reported stories are taken as "expert analysis."
It's sad, really. I blame Harry Knowles and Matt Drudge, in part, but I also blame myself, the media and other readers who demand "inside info." I made one call to a friend at Disney. I got at least two-thirds of the story that Jim got from his so-called insiders. And Jim's not telling the whole story. He heard what he wanted to hear.
I have no love of Pixar, Disney or any of the rest of it. I enjoy tracking the movie industry, and I enjoy tracking the blogosphere. The fact is Jim is a shoddy reporter. He's very Rupert Murdoch in his approach. Very New York Post. (I would say very Bush administration, but even I'm not that cruel.)
He takes the tiniest items that support his case and tosses out the rest and hopes you don't notice.
The facts are these: $200 in this year's marketplace is a success, animated, Pixar or otherwise. The Simpsons should also be lauded for doing exceptional business in this market.
Post the negative Jim. it's fine. But don't become the lying, propaganda-spewing dirt-monger that bloggers like you came online to fight.
Ugh.
It's very premature for Disney and Pixar to be at odds over Pixar's films, which have just recently gotten into releasing one new film per year, while Disney's own films can barely make a noticable profit, and are currently releasing one new film every 18 months due to constant changes in management.
Even if some people couldn't stomach the concept of a rat chef, it still had more of a ring with the general audience than the concept of a boy genius meeting his future family, as good as both films were.
The real test here is whether Pixar's influence will help Disney with their films, not the other way around.
Also, keep in mind that Jim is the only one really saying anything about Pixar's "under-performance". No articles from Wall Street or any major publishers to back him up.
What does that say?
StorytellerSJK - You wrote "Even if his manipulating the facts (and I am not saying he does) so what?"
Then minderbinder shows us that imdb.com has picked up on this post: http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/#film2
And it's not the first time this has happened. Jim's been quoted as saying Disney "artists" have been hoping for Ratatouille's failure (when Jim never really said that, he said someone at Disney did, most likely a suit who was disgruntled that Lasseter caters to the artists and not the business people).
So what happens when Jim spins the facts and only relays messages from Disney suits and not from artists? Or when Jim tries to make it look like Cars and Ratatouille failed at the box office? It paints a picture of dysfunction within the Disney corporation, it paints a picture that Pixar is going down, and other major news sites pick up on it. And I'm sure people within Disney and Pixar end up reading this as well, and who knows what potential rifts/distrust that didn't exist could end up popping up because of it? As a big Disney-Pixar fan and stockholder who is excited about things going on at the company, I am irked by stories like this that have potential to wreck things internally if the Disney-Pixar merger/transition was going smoothly in the first place.
Ian - I am curious to hear what the whole story is if you know it. Please give us some of that inside info!! ;)
Ratatouille ©Disney/Pixar Jim Hill, of Jim Hill Media - an entertainment news website that often comments on matters Disney - has a post today about the Disney/Pixar movie Ratatouille. Although it recently crossed the $200 million dollar mark, the..
Sorry. I have one person's quotes and take on the story. While I would love to take apart bad reporting by Jim, I can't do it with bad reporting of my own. :-)
I know that sounds like a cop-out, but two wrongs, well, you know ... But I appreciate you asking!
To me, some of Jim's writing (and he's not alone. Al Lutz gets pretty sloppy sometimes, then never retracts his glaring errors.) is like verbal paparazzi. he doesn't care about the story. Just the money shot.
He doesn't get as much publicity or talkback if he's saying things are hunky dory.
Here's a few other Disney movies that "underperformed" at the boxoffice..... "Pinocchio", "Fantasia", "Bambi"...the list of classics goes on & on. The Disney suits (& others) should realize that Pixar is building a legacy with these movies & characters just like Walt did in the Past. It's not just to make a quick buck.
"Quality is the Best Business Plan".... well said.
Someone said .... "Sometimes I wonder if Pixar is getting to be a little...boutique-y"
- Exactly ..... and what is wrong with THAT?
There needs to be some specialized entertainment in the world.
Someone else said .... "They were really lucky this film received so much praise, because if it weren't for that I really think this movie would have done horrible"
What is a film without praise? You mean .... people actually going to see a movie because people are saying it is good? Thats crazy talk.... I thought people only went to the movies that everyone else sees just because... like lemmings off a cliff. I guess our society isn't a complete lost cause...
And here I thought Jim was starting to lay off the Ratatouille bashing. I guess he couldn't resist any longer. I've rarely seen such irrational hatred and bias before. It defies all logic.
Jim - please, in all fairness to those who claim that they "report" on topics. You MUST find a source inside of Pixar that can comment, even anonymously, on the topics you write on. Your sources you quote are always from Burbank and it's blatantly obvious you have no one in Emeryville that you have tried to contact. Or are they ignoring you? As it stands now, I can only say that JHM, while writing some entertaining articles, is the Fox News of Disney blogs... definitely NOT fair and balanced...
olegc,
Fox News = Rupert Murdoch. Well spotted.
Most readers seem to take Jim for what he is: an entertainment provider. But you are right. If he can't get the whole story, it's not really responsible to print the tiny part he has.
"Pixar.... humph! Who makes a movie about a Rat the cooks? I bet their next movie will be about a Mouse that pilots a steamboat. Idiots!!!"
Thank you captainhook91, that's my favorite comment of the day. Broke right through my anger and made me giggle.
Like others have said, I certainly think that Disney could have done a much better job than they did. I saw nothing at all of note when the movie was about to come out, and what I did see was pretty...well...lame (the "Dying to be a chef" or whatever poster comes into mind).
I think the Emeryville Horrors (as Jim would have us believe they are) are totally justified in their anger at the Disney marketing folks.
And since when does "praise" have anything to do with luck?
Praise is usually the result of quality, skill, and talent, or any combination of the three.
Now sure ... I suppose there is such a thing as "talent" and "skill" in the marketing professions .... such as turning a Seven Eleven into a Kwik E Mart .... or putting a mailbox that looks like RS-D2 on the street corner .... it is true a genious idea can make a less than genious product sell. ... but that doesn't always work when you are talking about art.
In the case of Ratatouille, the movie sold itself to everyone that was interrested in seeing it and the word of mouth in that group. I don't think that any amount of "marketing" would help.
I don't believe what I am seeing here ... everyone talks like the marketing is more important that the product.... that you do whatever it takes to "sell" the movie even if it means misrepresenting what the movie is about. Thats just wrong. ... and it catches up with you.
Like WALL-Es first trailer ... we are supposed to get exicted by all of the name dropping? I don't like tricks like this .... not everyone is a sucker .... let the idea stand on its own without trying to coerce us with credentials that really mean nothing on a project by project basis.
Rluke1971 said:
("Someone said .... "Sometimes I wonder if Pixar is getting to be a little...boutique-y")
"- Exactly ..... and what is wrong with THAT?
There needs to be some specialized entertainment in the world."
I'm 7 BILLION percent sure, Mr. Iger wasn't looking to buy a "little Boutique-y" film making company...by the way, I don't think they are turning "boutique-y", but, I do believe however, they are making films that skew older than their previous classics...not sure Mr. I is thrilled with that, either. Time will tell. Cheers!
$200 million for this movie is pretty good. If it didn't have the Disney/Pixar name and reputation behind it, it wouldn't have come close to that. It's not that the movie was bad, it was just disappointing.
I, like many fans, expect a certain something from a Pixar film....that expectation sells a bunch of tickets. In terms of entertainment value, Pixar set the bar pretty high with the Toy Story movies, Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo. The reputations of those films still draw people in to see the new releases. The problem is, with each successive film that does not compare to those "classics", fewer and fewer people will be willing to pay to see the next movie just because of the Pixar name. That, in my opinion, is why each Pixar release since Finding Nemo has earned less than the one before it.
The Incredibles, Cars and Ratatouille were all good (but not great) movies. None of them measured up to those earlier films and so each successive one lost some of the "automatic" Pixar market. I bet Wall-E loses even more (especially since it seems like a terrible premise to begin with). Not until Pixar puts out another movie that has the same level of humor, fun and especially cleverness that the earlier films had will more people be willing to see a movie just because of the Pixar name.
Interesting point, Ayefour.
I think the track record does make a big difference, but I think Ratatouille suffered not because it was a drop in quality, but because Cars was. Before Cars, I was willing to see any pixar film regardless of reviews. When Cars came out, it showed me that they could drop the ball and lost some trust from me.
I'll bet there were a decent number of people who saw cars and felt burned by it, and it made them skeptical about Ratatouille.
Personally, Nemo is one of my less favorite Pixar films, and I think Incredibles and Ratatouille are both way better and every bit as good as the other earlier pixar material.
I think people are coming at this article from the wrong side, in some cases. As someone else said, there are about 7 billion reasons why Disney did not want to buy a little boutiquey-niche company that churned out well-reviewed, poorly performing box office films.
You can spin the numbers either way, really ... Jim shows only the bad, while some people pull out ancillary numbers (like foreign box office or merchandise sales) to "prove" that films didn't underperform.
But the numbers are only valid when you compare apples to apples. You can't say that Nemo did x billion dollars worldwide and then criticize Rat because it "only" did 200 mil domestically. Worldwide vs. domestic box is not apples to apples. Likewise, you can't say that Rat is as good as other Pixar films because it did y million overseas in addition to its domestic box. All the other Pixar films were hits in overseas markets, too, and they all sold some level of merchandise, etc. Until someone pops a chart that shows the sum total of all revenue streams for all eight movies, you really can't do a fair comparison. What's going on here in both the articles and a lot of the posts is just spin.
The bottom line is, no matter what claims or justifications you make to the contrary, Rat did not do as well as the other Pixar films and they ARE on a downward trend in terms of domestic box office receipts (the only true apples to apples comparison I can make right now).
Look I hear ya all ... it's nice to make good quality films. It's nice to have the best reviewed film of the year and maybe even the Oscar for best animated film (although I'd submit that that and $4.95 will get you a latte at Starbucks).
But Disney bought Pixar mostly because they were a money making machine. You don't invest 7 billion in a company that makes "cute" movies that are "well reviewed."
And I gotta be honest ... at least from where I stand, I don't have any confidence that their next films are gonna break this trend. I'm a Pixar guy, though, so here's hoping I'm wrong.
Great observations, "Ayefour" and "Pickstar"...it reminds me of Woody Allen's career...and his self examination of this very point in his film “Stardust Memories”…I believe it was an alien from a UFO who spoke to him in a dream sequence…”we love your films…especially the earlier, funny ones”. It’s a very common thing for artists to want to change, expand and flex their creative mussels. It’s just part of the “Circle of (artistic) Life”. People change, companies change…some may love the new stuff…others may only want to see “the earlier funny stuff”! Cheers!
>>> But Disney bought Pixar mostly because they were a money making machine. You don't invest 7 billion in a company that makes "cute" movies that are "well reviewed." <<<
Actually, my understanding was Disney bought Pixar because:
a) it would have been disastrous if Pixar ended up as Disney's competitor when they were already up against DreamWorks Animation and other studios looking for the piece of the CGI movie pie.
b) Iger wanted to get Disney animation QUALITY back up where it's always been before the suits made all the movie making decisions, and what company better to merge with than Pixar?
Yes, Pixar is a money making machine. But they are a money making machine because, as they keep saying over and over again, they pay a lot of attention to story. They follow that whole "Quality is the Best Business Plan" mantra. And thankfully, it doesn't sound like Pixar is going to bend over backwards and force themselves to be like DreamWorks Animation and make pop culture joke-laced movies just because they "only" made $200 million domestically this time around. They are not going to kill the golden goose just to please the short-term investors. I'd expect a "Pixar guy" to appreciate that.
Look, to be honest I didn't think Ratatouille was their best either. Saw it twice, and I do think they are lucky to have made $200 million all things considered. But I appreciate that Pixar, like Walt Disney, knows that even if there's always the potential to fail, that shouldn't stop you from always trying to be great.
Oh, and check out these wise words from an article I read from a while back regarding Disney when Eisner was running things:
"...All these Disney execs saw was an immediate cost savings for the corporation if they shut down the Secret Lab. Which is why they went for it. Walking briskly away from that $100 million-plus investment in hardware and talent. All just to save a few bucks.
It's that exact quality that I personally find so exasperating about the Walt Disney Company's current management team. No one thinks ahead anymore. These days, everyone in the executive suite is concentrating on how they can look good right now. What they can do today that will guarantee that they still have a job tomorrow. It's all short term thinking. With little thought as to what the long term ramifications of today's actions might be..."
Who wrote these words, alluding that Disney should be focusing on quality and on the long term, instead of the short term quick buck? Your beloved Jim Hill: http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2003/01/15/224.aspx
What happened to that mentality, Jim?
Why was Pixar purchased?
Here is what should happen ....
A few guys from Disney transfer up to Pixar, a few Pixar guys transfer down to Disney ... people get cross trained. Talent rubs off .... BOTH Disney Animation and Pixar benefit.
That’s usually what happens when a company merges.
Here is the thing ... Pixar continues to make high end ... even more high end concept stuff ... (call it "boutique" if you will)... and Disney Animation continues to make the mass market kids stuff that is always has ... but perhaps with a renewed eye for quality and discernment that wasn’t there before.
Toy Story was literally the first computer animated movie. Monsters Inc was practically the third ever made. It's safe to say that Nemo is the undisputed king of CGI animated films thus far not only because of the previous Pixar films, but because of Shrek as well.... because during these first few years it was all cutting edge and new and people wanted more .... it was ALL "boutique".
What needs to stop is this CGI vs. 2D rivalry. Yes ... we understand that the old timers feel burned when Pixar became the golden child during the Toy Story - Nemo years. The fact of the matter is that if Enchanted isn't a good "fairy tale movie" and the animated parts come off more like a gimmick than genuine Disney 2D animation... it really won't much matter ... people may not come out for WALL-E .... and if WALL-E doesn't do well ... then maybe no-one will come out for The Princess and the Frog.
The average movie goer doesn't separate these movies .... they are NOT separate genres as the creators seem to think they are. The sooner they stop playing this game the better ... for them and for us.
Look at Beowulf .... it's clearly not a kids movie.... it looks awful ... but in the end it may do well because there is a market for more adult oriented animated content.
If WALL-E doesn't float your boat ... then Disney has in the works something that will... THAT is how an entertainment bisiness works. Personally ... I think the ONLY CGI movie that "Disney Animation" did of any significance was Dinosaur ... and I for one liked it better than I liked Nemo.
What I find interesting is the fact that apparently both Disney and Pixar thought a movie about a rat in a kitchen would sell. To anyone.
It is a beautiful piece of work, but most people I've talked to about the film back off because of the main character's species and the location of the story.
Granted, it has made the $200 MM mark and that is a great accomplishment, but I think it is time that folks take a step back, get a grip and realize that not everything is going to be a top 10 draw and win all the awards.
Disney has been around long enough to know that there are no guarantees about anything in this business. They spent the $$$ to buy Pixar -- and presumably they knew what they were getting when they wrote the check. They can cry all they want about box office results, but if the public isn't interested in the product, there won't be a market.
Pixar has had an amazing run but it is illogical to assume that every piece of work they put out will hit the top 10. And, if I recall correctly, Ratatouille was not designed to be a "Disney" film in the first place. They can hardly cry foul because Disney didn't know how to market it.
Woah woah woah, that studio insider's comments on WALL-E was way too harsh!!! I'm very much looking forward to WALL-E. I am actually happy that Pixar is promoting the film instead of Disney. If it was Disney, they would have bastardize the marketing campaign.
Now the reason why RATATOUILLE didn't do well as most hoped was simply because it came out during a busy week and part of the marketing campaign sucked.
It should have came out the week EVAN ALMIGHTY came out, which wouldn't have posed a threat because the movie flopped in the box office. RATATOUILLE came out the same week LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD came, and a week before TRANSFORMERS was released. Because it was in theatres during those weeks, it faced a lot of competition. HARRY POTTER didn't help either.
As for the marketing, yeah, releasing a 9 minute clip and having preview showings (complete with the WALL-E teaser and "Lifted") were good ideas, but the TV ads and movie posters could have been better. They marketed the movie as a comedy about a cute rat, without aknowledgement of the human characters and enough information about Remy's goals. Also, I notice that there's too much merchandise of Emile when he didn't play a major role in the film. In a way, some of the kiddy merchandise seems odd (um, remote-controlled Remy?).
BOTTOM LINE: The RATATOUILLE campaign could have been better if they didn't market the movie as a slapstick-filled comedy. The film itself was more mature than that.
Mickey, Jim's not Al Lutz. Al quotes disgruntled Imagineers verbatim. Jim paraphrases disgruntled animators. Difference.
**ducks**
StorytellerSJK said:
"I have got it out of my system and I can now go back to doing what I should have done all along: ignoring the ungrateful and self righteous morons who are posting on this site. After all that certainly seems to be what Jim is doing. If its good enough for him... Thanks for the laughs. I now return to reading the comments of those who have intelligent points to add to a discussion."
Name calling now? Wow, your intelligence astounds me.
"I'm 7 BILLION percent sure, Mr. Iger wasn't looking to buy a "little Boutique-y" film making company..."
Yeah, but better a nice little Boutique than a Wal-mart. Remember, people can spot quality.
The marketing isn't to blame, the release date is. If its release date had been bumped up a week opposite Evan Almighty, it might have done better. Disney played it safe assuming that Evan Almighty would be a hit when it ended up being a bomb. Playing it safe is what hurt Ratatouille's BO. It opened in one of the most competitive extended weekends all summer opposite Live Free or Die Hard and Transformers and did great against them, but it could have done better.
Jim, I expect you to not speak of your sources again, as now there is a mouse hunt going on to find out who is telling you this because this is less than 1% of what is actually going on and SOMEONE will be fired.
i like pixar movies but i had no desire to see Cars (still haven't) and Rat just does nothing for me and won't go see it. Right up until last year, i was a devoted fan. but seriously, movie fans grow up, too. maybe the films should try it, too. the audience doesn't stay the same. I do have hopes for Wall*E, though. Cars and Rat just seemed like a step down from the incredibles content-wise. i hate nascar and i hate rats. it seems like these guys probably shoulda done their research a bit better.
Okay Jim. I think I am getting the picture. Run negative articles to get people all fired up and reading your site. A page taken right from Lutz. Nothing like flipping the bird in traffic to get a reaction.
Jeez.
With all due respect, darwinwins, your comment reeks of ignorance. I can somewhat justify your lack of desire to see Cars, but you think that Ratatouille is less "grown up" than The Incredibles? What exactly are you smoking?
As for the Marketing campaign, I think that Disney put all their efforts into Pirates, and Ratatouille seemed like a mere afterthought. For example, The day Ratatouille opened, I went to see it at the Ziegfeld Theatre in NYC (Amazing, old-school theatre, by the way), and afterwards, took a short 2 block walk to the World of Disney Store on Fifth Avenue. I walked around the whole store, not being able to find one item on Ratatouille. Finally as I was leaving, I checked this one nook on the first floor and found one table with some Ratatouille merchandise. It was pretty pathetic. Also, the store didnt even have a window devoted to Ratatouille. What's up with that? The perfect opportunity to advertise your film on opening day for free in you're own storefront window, and nothing. I don't know...doesn't seem too bright.
Quando il pregiudizio ci azzecca: The Darjeeling Limited odorava di passo indietro rispetto a Steve Zissou, che a sua volta non era particolarmente ben riuscito; le recensioni sembrano confermarlo. Ed ovviamente nessuno può risparmiarsi un accenno
Tough crowd ...
This thread has really gone the way of negativity now hasn't it?
Where did all you hecklers come from?
You don't fool me.... you guys with all of the insults ... you are the real deal aren't you? YOU are Disney/Pixar insiders who can't stand the truth ....and so now all you want to do is cause enough noise here to turn away readers and shut JHM down.
The truth is .... On the one hand ... you have a group of elitist animators and artists who believe they are the best at what they do ... and have a record to prove it. ... On the other hand ... you have a group of elitist animators and artists who feel they belong to the original club.... who resent the new guys on the block for stealing the thunder and for literally doing away with what they did best (traditional animation).
Problem is.... one group now owns the other. And so now a very silly and unproductive battle wages on within. This is typical ... I don't believe Jim Hill exaggerates this ... This schoolyard rivalry is most likely real…. and what we debate here is probably just the tip of the iceberg. They probably fight over which studio has a better copier machine. There is probably a huge difference in wages. One group may get its computers from DELL... the other from APPLE. There may be more company parties at one location that the other. It's all been seen before and its all typical.
Here is my message you ALL of you guys at Disney and Pixar who believe you need to “prove” something …. Keep this up and your art is going to suffer. Keep it up and the boss man may have no other choice but to do the dirty deed of ELIMINATING the PIXAR name, brand and logo altogether and then fire anyone who as much as suggests a divide. It may be the only way to get the message down to the ground that you are ONE TEAM now.
Whoever don’t like it will have to simply just GO work for someone else ... maybe you'll be lucky enough to be assigned to work on ICE AGE 5 or Shrek 17.
You had all better be carefull what you wish for.
Ayefour, the one problem with your analysis (thoughtful as it is) is that is relies too much on your personal opinions regarding Pixar films. For example, I believe that The Incredibles ran into much more competition (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm going based on memory from looking this up a few months ago) from other family films during its run (something that could cut into its grosses even if not a single person disliked it), and that you'd be hard pressed to find a general consensus that it wasn't in the league of previous films.
I think Ratatouille's lower grosses compared to previous Pixar films has nothing to do with its quality, and everything to do with the fact that it just wasn't an easy, marketable sell to young children, the market that usually propels these films. As I watched it, I realized that it was the first film from Pixar that legitimately seemed aimed above young kids deliberately.
"Pixar continues to make high end ... even more high end concept stuff ... (call it "boutique" if you will)... and Disney Animation continues to make the mass market kids stuff that is always has ... but perhaps with a renewed eye for quality and discernment that wasn’t there before."
The funny thing is, the "boutique" pixar stuff still makes more money than the disney "mass market" stuff. The "boutique" thing would only make sense if they weren't making a profit, but they still are in a big way.
"What I find interesting is the fact that apparently both Disney and Pixar thought a movie about a rat in a kitchen would sell. To anyone."
But they were right to the tune of $200M just domestic. It was certainly a risk, but I'm glad they took it, they can't just keep making the same movie over and over (which they've been leaning towards, and which was my biggest complaint with Cars).
"movie fans grow up, too. maybe the films should try it, too."
Ironically, Ratatouille is probably pixars most mature and least "kid friendly" movie. Maybe you should give the film a chance, it seems like the loudest complaining comes from people who haven't seen the movie. I don't know anyone who's seen it who hasn't liked it (loved it in most cases). Word of mouth has been good, problem is not enough people had seen it to spread the word, and it was the most crowded summer ever.
"...so now a very silly and unproductive battle wages on within."
Does it? I doubt it. All of Jim's "quotes" have been from suits, and all have been from disgruntled folks on the Disney side. These studios are in different cities hours apart, most of the artists doing the actual work probably have little contact with the other side. It wouldn't surprise me if the Pixar guys are happily chugging along as they always have.
Piecesof8,
You are right. I do rely heavily on my own opinions because I consider them to be pretty mainstream. I think the box office numbers support my position.
A movie's box office is is made up of two major factors....the ticket sales based on anticipation and those sold based on the merits of the actual movie. Early on when, in my opinion, the Pixar films were just better movies, each one caused a greater "anticipation" factor for the next...there were more people willing to pay to see a Pixar movie just because of how good the previous ones were. I am convinced that is part of the reason that Nemo did so well. Yes, it is a good movie, but I think it benefited from coming after Monsters, Inc which (again, only my opinion) is the best of all Pixar movies. After Monsters, Inc, many people would have bought a ticket for anything with the Pixar name on it. I'll go so far as to say that if Ratatouille was released when Nemo was it would have earned another $50 million just from the "anticipation" factor.
With each Pixar release since Nemo, the anticipation factor has decreased and so have the overall box office numbers. Unfortunately for Wall-E, I think the anticipation factor is almost gone.
I've always suspected that the uninteresting nature of "Cars" made people a bit less eager to run out to the theater for the next "Pixar Movie". They'll wait for the DVD.
"Unfortunately for Wall-E, I think the anticipation factor is almost gone."
This is based on what? A minute long trailer where all you really get to see is some gloating about how WALL-E was thought up at the same time as Monsters Inc., a Bugs Life, Nemo and Toy Story 2. Notice how this first trailer seems to make it a point to let you know that the people behind WALL-E are NOT the same guys behind CARS or Ratatouille?
And while we are on the subject of CARS .... your average American consumer LOVES Cars. All you guys who keep talking like Cars was some kind of failure? It was the second highest grossing movie of last year... the toy stores are still selling merchandise off the selves. Toddlers everywhere continue to force their parents to play the DVD almost repeatedly.
WALL-E is going to be a lot like CARS. In this day of my space, ipods and cell phones, people will LOVE the little robot with the cute face. We really have NO IDEA at this point what the rest of the movie will look and feel like. Think "Batteries not Included", "Short Circuit" etc...
I really didn't think that movies about fish, bugs, or for that matter talking toys were going to be as charming as they ending up being neither.
I'm not concerned with the supposed underlying commentary on humanity.... it wasn't really a problem for the last act of "Happy Feet" (Why so many loved that movie is beyond me).
Say what you will about Ratatouille .... but I think that you are all wrong about WALL-E.
Here are some financial failures from the past - Pinnochio, Fantasia, Bambi, Sleeping Beauty...the list goes on. All those films made a LOSS on their initial run (unlike Ratatouille, which is making a very tidy PROFIT). I am glad that money is not always the sole motivating factor behind creativity.
I find it hard to believe how the Jim Hill who once chided Disney for giving up great theme (but expensive) theme park concepts in favor of cheaper ones, has become the Jim Hill who could care less about the quality of a product...as long as it brings in big bucks.
tasman - "money is not always ..."
for a publicly traded company, it sure as hell is.
I can understand how Disney's suits are less-than-thrilled with Ratatouille's domestic box office, considering the movie cost $150 million to make, and has only now hit the $200 million mark. That said, Pixar's still one of the few studios that has never produced a theatrical flop. That's a track record other industry types (the Weinsteins perhaps?) cannot match. And I agree, Ratatouille is the odds-on favourite to win next year's Best Animated Feature Film Oscar.
Besides, many of Disney's classic animated films (Sleeping Beauty, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Fantasia) flopped during their initial runs, and found their audiences much later. In comparison with these revered films, Ratatouille's doing pretty well and, given the flick's stellar reviews, it will get its Platinum Edition release down the line.
Why Disney's marketers didn't use Vic Taboush's quote: "Ratatouille is the best animated film since Pinocchio" in their promo is beyond me.
BTW, the infighting that Jim Hill (and others) mentioned has only occurred at the executive level, not among the animators and creatives. In a story I wrote on June 11th (http://hollywood-animated-films.suite101.com/article.cfm/rapunzel_gets_new_life), Animation Guild #839 business rep Steve Hulett reported that morale at Disney Animation had risen since Lasseter's arrival.
"One employee said to me that he thought story development was way better than when he first came to the studio (he's been there a few years)," wrote Hulett. "I said that, judging from the morale of story crews up on the third floor, I think that's true. The artists don't feel as constricted and hemmed in by executives with their reams of notes the way they did several years back. Now its (sic) peers reviewing peers. Most people in the story department seem to like that a whole lot better."
Hulett also stated that 'Rapunzel' director Glen Keane also claimed to be "happy with the new direction of 'Rapunzel' and credited the new regime with helping to make the picture better."
A little "freshly-cooked perspective" for everyone. ;)
I'm starting to get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, Jim isn't happy that Disney bought Pixar. So let's imagine, for a moment, that they didn't.
Pixar's distribution deal ended after Cars, as it was supposed to. Instead, their movies are now distributed by (let's say) Universal. We'll give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and say that Meet The Robinsons didn't benefit from John's story change demands, and still made $97m. And we'll assume that Universal couldn't market Ratatouille any better than Disney did, and it still took 65 days to make $200m.
What would Jim write about?
Would he be asking rhetorical questions about why Meet The Robinsons failed to make $100 domestically, and was beaten by The Simpsons and Ratatouille? Would he be complaining that Iger should have done a deal with Pixar when he had the chance, instead of missing out on this latest blockbuster? Maybe we would get more stories about the 'Disney That Could Have Been, And It's A Shame It Never Got Made'.
We certainly wouldn't get articles about the rehiring of Ron & John, or the resurgence of traditional animation at Disney... those came about thanks to John Lasseter. Maybe he would be complaining about the increasing number of DTV sequels/prequels/cheapquels... instead of complaining about Lasseter finally halting production of them.
Perhaps we'd actually get a story about something in development, or something positive? But I somehow doubt it. Jim comes off more and more as a grumpy old man.
The thing that amuses me the most about all these negative articles about Ratatouille is that Jim is reminding me more and more of the food critic in that same movie. Writing about the bad things because it's more fun to write and to read. Jim seems to be stretching for the negative points, or focusing on them, instead of taking the good with the bad. Pixar are not infallible by any means, but they are doing some good things for Disney. Why can't we get some focus on the benefits (not to mention the revenue, both box-office and ongoing) brought to Disney by the Pixar purchase? $200m is still more than any Disney animated feature has made since The Lion King... isn't it a GOOD thing that the money went to Disney and not to a competitor?
"All you guys who keep talking like Cars was some kind of failure? It was the second highest grossing movie of last year..."
Third. Night at the Museum passed it. And its overseas numbers were a huge step down for pixar. Ratatouille is looking more and more certain to improve on those.
Overseas numbers are in for this past weekend, and Ratatouille only dropped 10% from the previous, with no major new countries. Even before release in those last few big countries, it's catching up on Simpsons bit by bit.
Interesting article, but the comments are even more interesting. Late to the game and just commenting on comments. :)
--- I am glad to see Pixar trying to put a little originality into their films and take some risks...not just put out films with burping and farting animals like every other studio seems to do. --
Well said, I applaud Pixar for taking risks. With Wall-E being mostly a silent movie with robot sounds, the risk taking continues.
--- Yes, the marketing wasn't great, but it was not that bad. I agree, Pixar should be thankful this film made $200M this summer. Too much competition, it wasn't a sequel, and it's about rats. $200M is great. --
Exactly. Remy and his brother playing football or soccer with vegetables? Come on. If that is the best they can do, oh boy. The 9-min clip was a good idea, the prints were all crap imho.
--- This ongoing tirade seems like a kid who gets all A plusses in school, and when he finally gets an A, dad beats him. --
HAHAHA!
--- It's a no brainer pick for the animation oscar as well. --
No way, The Simpsons will win. It's like a lifetime achievement award. Rats will loose.
--- I think the sneaks and web preview clip were the right thing to do to build up word-of-mouth, and $200 million for a story about a rat cook is pretty good. --
Again, agreed. It's still a ton of money. People who expect movies to make more and more are insane. At the end there are only so many theaters and so many people that have the time to go see a movie. The box office will hit a plateau sooner or later. Now factor in actual movie competition, the movie's story, etc. Not every new release can top the previous one.
--- Maybe if they increased their production output a bit, ... --
Oh please don't. CG by itself is already not the "new thing" anymore. We don't need more cg movies a year. Disney movies used to be something special, then they came out every year, one after the other, an avalanche of mediocre movies on top of that. The "Pixar" novelty is fading, and having one movie a year is not helping.
--- Zany, Looney tunes type comedy with nothing but pop music and pop culture references throughout. PIXAR is not on this bandwagon. --
Except for Cars, which had too much pop music and pop culture reference. I don't need a song telling me what's going on or what I am supposed to feel.
--- "Pixar.... humph! Who makes a movie about a Rat the cooks? I bet their next movie will be about a Mouse that pilots a steamboat. Idiots!!!" --
Nice.
-- The Incredibles, Cars and Ratatouille were all good (but not great) movies. None of them measured up to those earlier films and so each successive one lost some of the "automatic" Pixar market. --
I still think "The Incredibles" is one of their best movies. But superheroes are easier to market than Rats. Cars "failed" because the story just wasn't very original and the movie had a dragging middle part. I still don't think it's a bad movie. It was to me the most kiddie geared movie they have done, very cute and very innocent. Compared with the rest, it's my least favorite and actually the only Pixar DVD I haven't bought. Rats on the other hand was great (being French made me want to see that movie even more).
--- Great observations, "Ayefour" and "Pickstar"...it reminds me of Woody Allen's career...and his self examination of this very point in his film “Stardust Memories”…I believe it was an alien from a UFO who spoke to him in a dream sequence…”we love your films…especially the earlier, funny ones”. It’s a very common thing for artists to want to change, expand and flex their creative mussels. It’s just part of the “Circle of (artistic) Life”. People change, companies change…some may love the new stuff…others may only want to see “the earlier funny stuff”! Cheers! --
Very good point.
--- The truth is .... On the one hand ... you have a group of elitist animators and artists who believe they are the best at what they do ... and have a record to prove it. ... On the other hand ... you have a group of elitist animators and artists who feel they belong to the original club.... who resent the new guys on the block for stealing the thunder and for literally doing away with what they did best (traditional animation). --
True, but both companies are hiring new people that are not having that attitude and who even things out. I think the fighting is more going on in the higher levels of management.
--- With each Pixar release since Nemo, the anticipation factor has decreased and so have the overall box office numbers. Unfortunately for Wall-E, I think the anticipation factor is almost gone.--
I don't know about gone, but it's certainly going down. But there will be a Toy Story 3 jumping in to the rescue (and I can't wait to see it).
I hear that Wall-E will have a very interesting look to it and the fact that it is near silent (besides the robot noises) makes me very curious. The writing in your typical CG movie nowadays is lousy anyway, I won't miss it.
I'm curious to see the numbers for the merchandise and licensing department. I hear that "Cars" is making TONS of movie. Is that why there are rumors about "Cars 2"?
As I understand it, Cars 2 is really a Cars short..not a feature length film.
http://www.raymation.net
Darwinwins said:
"For a publicly traded company, it sure as hell is."
That's bull. Money is an important concern but not always the only one...otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing Disney. Many successful companies in entertainment are created by people who have artistic ambitions that go beyond the bottom line. Walt didn't have to refine his animated films or theme park to the extent that he did in order to make a profit...but he did anyway. The folks at Pixar know how to make a profit too...but they've found that they can do so without basing their material on what is most likely to make a fast buck. So hurrah to them.
Ayefour,
I do agree with you that Ratatouille probably would've made a good deal more had it been released right after Nemo. I also think it would've received the same boost had it immediately followed The Incredibles. I think the largely underwhelmed reaction to Cars did more to lessen Ratatouille's box office than any lack of quality in Ratatouille or The Incredibles, and I honestly think that those two are looked at by those who've seen them as being as good as anything Pixar has ever made. Not a big deal though, I just view it differently.
And I did take a look back at the competition Nemo and The Incredibles faced during their runs, and I do think the box office backs up what I said earlier. The Incredibles faced competition for most of its theatrical run from National Treasure and The Polar Express (both very big hits), and another solid grosser in The Spongebob Squarepants movie. The only other real family film competition that Nemo faced early in its run were Rugrats Go Wild, which only made $40 m, and Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas, which flopped out at $26 mil. After that, it was clear sailing for Nemo until July 25th (when Spykids 3D was released), at which point it was in its ninth week of release and had already cracked 300 million domestically. The Incredibles would've made Nemo-style money had it had Nemo-style box office competition, and I don't think for a second that The Incredibles hurt the anticipation factor for any future Pixar films.
Anyhow, I didn't mean to get so involved in this. I just think there's only so much a movie about a rat chef, one that is decidedly less mainstream than usual animated fare but relying on a mainstream, family audience to provide its box office grosses, can make. It could've made more had it followed The Incredibles or Finding Nemo, perhaps. But in the end, I think $200 million for Ratatouille can't be called a disappointment by any means, just considering the kind of movie it is; more sly and sophisticated than packed with laughs and action, and featuring a plot and hero which aren't that marketable.
Just to add to what Piecesof8 said about competition - I wouldn't expect any more of those no-family-movie-competition time periods with DreamWorks pushing to make two movies a year now. DreamWorks and Disney/Pixar will be competing for the same audiences in the summer and during the holidays from now on; sadly it appears DreamWorks has figured out that during the time when CGI animation is common, best way to make a buck is through sequels... Meaning when Madagascar 2 outgrosses Ratatouille, expect more Pixar-bashing articles from JHM talking about how Pixar is losing it and maybe should start listening to the marketing department more, like how DreamWorks is doing it.
By the way, straight from Bird's mouth. Seems "Pixar Don't Give a Rat's...":
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22368740-5006023,00.html
(Note a lot of those numbers seem wrong.)
Dreamworks will only keep doing two per year as long as they are making a profit, and their numbers have been dropping as well, even with Shrek 3. Let's see how Bee Movie does, I wouldn't be surprised if it makes less than Over the Hedge (155M) and I think it has zero chance of beating Ratatouille. And I'm skeptical that a sequel to Madagascar would top the first.
CGI has been trendy lately, but the market has been oversaturated, audiences recognize the glut, and it has hurt all players. Now that CGI isn't the guaranteed blockbuster it once was, the weaker players will drop out. DW isn't going to quit, but they may scale back the schedule if they have a film or two that loses money. And it helps that disney is going back to mostly 2D and not competing with pixar.
By the way, Ratatouille is just opening today in Australia, should be interesting to see how it starts there.
LiverGap, thanks for the link. The discrepancy in numbers is just showing them in australian currency since it's an australian publication.
Tasman ...
of course money is the driving force. let's go back in animation history a bit.
sleeping beauty was the most expensive film disney animation had produced. it flopped. their next product was 101 dalmations. the animation quality didn't go down for a reason. it was to maximize profits for minimal effort.
Actually, darwin....
101 Dalmations' look and feel was an artistic choice, not an effort to save money.
Just fyi.
And Livergap - THANK YOU for that link. I soooo hope that Jim, and all the other "Pixar stinks" people will read that, think a bit of Walt himself, and see the situation for what it is. Some people are in it for quality and have the brains and the guts to know that money will follow... as will longevity.
Pixar ain't perfect, but it's better than anything else out there right now.
_101 Dalmatmatian's look and feel was an artistic choice, not an effort to save money.-
Actually CaptainHook, it was both. A film with even one spotted dog would be a nightmare for the ink and paint department, and getting close to 101 on the screen using traditional ink and paint would have been near impossible.
Reportedly Ken Anderson was the driving force behind getting this film made. Walt was ready to pull the plug on the animation studio altogether when then returns from Sleeping Beauty came in and he compared them to what he was making from his live action comedies (The Shaggy Dog and The Absent Minded Professor both cost only a few hundred thousand to make and brought in millions of dollars of profit) Ken made a test film that showed how using Xeroxed cels on both the character animation and the backgrounds could give the film a more contemporary look, but more important save time and money.
Walt learned years ago that innovations that drive up the cost of the film are more trouble than they are worth (one particular multiplane shot in Pinocchio cost about the same as an average short and it was completely ignored by the audience) So when he saw that he could still keep the animation studio running by trimming a lot of the frills, he said O.K., but very reluctantly (Reportedly his initial reaction to the test was not good, saying things like, "All those black lines, this put us back to where we were about thirty years ago")
"What the hell, Pixar dudes?"
I'm not a Hollywood insider, but it seems to me that Ratatouille's very concept was at variance with its blockbuster aspirations. I agree with other posters here that the film was lucky to make the money it made. The movie was designed in part to appeal to "foodies," an annoying, elitist group of people. (They seem not to understand that the primary purpose of food is to keep us alive.) No wonder it was a big hit with film critics. Of course, suckup Brad Bird made sure to thank critics for their support of The Incredibles by making a food writer the real hero of Ratatouille. That's one way to ensure good notices. And just as predictably, critics took the bribe, directly comparing themselves to O'Toole's character. In some cases, they literally quoted from the Anton Ego review to summarize their own responses to the film. Yeah, Bird actually WROTE their reviews for them.
Pixar is good at this kind of calculated appeal to middlebrow instincts (casting NPR personalities in supporting roles, etc.), but its diminishing box-office proceeds expose the limitations of its strategies.
"The movie was designed in part to appeal to "foodies," an annoying, elitist group of people."
Wow, I never realized there was such hatred for people who just like good food. Sorry you didn't like the movie, I thought it was awesome.
And do you really find fault with the casting of Sarah Vowell in Incredibles? Regardless of whether it brought in any NPR fans, she was PERFECT for that part.
If $200 mill domestic box is my worst performer, I'm feeling pretty good. In contrast, I have heard through multiple sources that the working environment at Disney is toxic. I'm not surprised that someone is leaking venom out toward Pixar. They're jealous, and that's how toxic people handle things.
I didn't mind the rats. I think they were well done, cute and could have appealed to kids. It's just that when the story went into the kitchen and into the adult-world, there was nothing of interest there for the kids. And even I did not like the female love interest!
I almost think that if the story had stayed in the rat world, with maybe the young cook (whose name I can't remember!) somehow involved, it would have been a more kid-friendly story. More places, more corny jokes, more slapstick -- more fleshing out of several of the rats' personalities -- might have made the movie more fun for all of us!
Save $$$ @ Disney MouseketripsA Disney Travel AgencySubstance Over Pixie Dust
Discount Disney TicketsFrom the largestticket store in OrlandoJHM Official Sponsor
Greg White Comics & Disneyana