Pixar has created what Disney had in the early nineties... When a new Disney movie came out... my parents took me to see it. I dont think I ever needed to ask.

And when Cars comes out Friday. My mom will have fandangoed tickets for our whole family. I havent even talked to her about it yet. I just know she will. And I know I'll be there. its tradition.

Lots of familes are doing this. Familes who arent Disney fanatics like my family.

Not to mention... aside from the Pixar/Disney effect, there's the Nascar/Larry the Cable guy effect. Lots of Nascar/Larry the cable guy fans who arent Disney fans, will go see it as well.

In short, Disney/Pixar should have NO trouble with this movie. Or at least I dont think so.

I saw the film at a studio preview on Saturday.  Pixar and Disney have nothing to worry about.  This film is fall-down funny, and should appeal to a very broad base.  I think it will open huge, and keep strong legs for at least six weeks.

There is so much detail, and some of it goes by so fast, that I plan to see it a few more times before it hits DVD.  Just the bit of business during the end credits is worth the price of admission alone.

Once upon a time, movies were judged by their entertainment value. If the movie told an interesting story in an entertaining way, people came to see it, and money flowed. People (at least the general public) didn't ask about opening weekend numbers on Pinocchio to determine if they should see the movie or not. A musical made by Paramount could be far more profitable than one made at MGM, but no one would suggest Paramount made better musicals than MGM.   No one would have suggested Chicken Little was a hit either.

Today we have analysts that tell every publicly-traded company what to do. These analysts have rarely held a production or service job, and certainly have never formed a company themselves. The analysts tell companies that even though they made billions in profit last quarter, if they just fired a few people they could have made billions plus one dollars in profit. Next quarter, they tell the company to eliminate their pension plans to make billions plus two dollars.

All this because the leaders of the companies aren't creative people. They don't know what to do if their widgets aren't selling. They didn't found the company, they just temporarily manage it, and they need to keep their millions in bonuses coming. If the company leaders could think up new widgets to sell when old ones stop selling, profits would keep growing without having to constantly fire people to stay afloat.

Now we've finally got a creative person - with a proven track record - in charge or close to in charge at Disney. The first time that has happened in over 40 years. (No, I'm sorry, Eisner was not creative, nor did he foster a creative atmosphere. He simply knew how to strip money from the company to his own bank account.) To suggest that an opening weekend take of $65 million means the movie is a failure, but $75 million means its a hit is a short-sighted bean counter's perspective. Especially when Cars merchandise has already outsold all the Chicken Little merchandise, and Cars still hasn't opened. Regardless of how the numbers get posted, Cars is going to make a boatload of money. It's pointless to see if we can numerically set John up for a so-called "failure."

If the company really wants to impress Wall Street, let's see them set an example and get executive pay and bonuses structered to a reasonable level - not a multiple of hundreds of times what most of the employees receive.   Oops, sorry  - that's just crazy talk - we don't want to impress Wall Street THAT much.

looks to me that disney films are going to have a very good year. im glad to see that disney/pixar (or dixar as i like to call it) are putting out good product.
cars looks great and potc will be awesome. santa clause 3 though? ill give it a chance.

ps- remember that scene in the first santa clause toward the end where they were getting ready, walking down the hallway and all of the sudden they stop and do this weird arms in front of them little dance move? never understood it.

Jim:  Why?...Why??...WHY?? do you have this thing about including MIramax films (and post-Weinsteins, at that) in the list of "Disney releases"?
"Because they own them! :) "--BZZT!...No, sorry, ruling from the judges, we can't accept that answer.
Once again, we have to point out that non-Weinstein Miramax is largely an independent distributor, not unlike at least half of the independent films ("Goal") that Disney releases in a year.
In a word, all that Mel Gibson and "Santa Clause 3" have in common is having sound.

Now, let's move on to that animated-grosses list...And please tell us, Jim, that you're not falling victim to the '02 Sinbad lure of "Every animated movie is the same, that's why audiences go to them!  :) "
To break them down, "Shrek 2" and "Ice Age 2"--and, to a lesser degree, Shark Tale and Madagascar--largely had their openings funded by deranged and deluded cults...Shrek's, of course, is well known (enough for Shark and Madagascar to coattail on it), only to let its poor optimistic dreamers down in the final product--While IA2 is the somewhat more frightening cult, with its dark cabal of stalkers who dream of shooting Donkey to prove their love to the Squirrel.  To them, no other scenes in the movie exist.  And don't mind telling you, it's kind of creepy.   0_0

Will "Cars" do well?  Look up any negative review of the other Fox and Dreamworks movies.  Go ahead, any one.  Now count how many contain some variation on  "Why can't they make them as good as Pixar?"
Pixar--It's not just a studio.  It's an adjective.  :)

As far as competition between Pixar movies and the POTC movies, I think that families with younger kids will see both movies; POTC may not be for the youngest kids.  That said, I'm worried about people who have to choose; I have a hunch that POTC would get their ticket money.  There definitely is a lot of animation out right now; I know for myself, I don't touch anything unless it's Disney or Pixar; other "Disney Dweebs" may be the same way...a few?  My biggest concern for "Cars" is all the marketing being done.  I personally love seeing Lightning McQueen and Mater wherever I go, but some people may feel they've seen so much of the movie that they'll wait 'til it comes out on DVD.  It looks great, it's Pixar, so it will do better than most animated films out there.

I have one fear and one fear only.  I'm worried that they have hyped this movie to death.  If I see Lightning McQueen or Mater on another product that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the movie I think I'm going to scream.  For months, you haven't been able to buy as much as a matchbox version of one of the stars of the movie in my city, but you could get practically anything you wanted from the grocery store (not to mention the tire shop and insurance company) with the characters plastered all over it.  Disney has never done this much product placement with a Pixar movie and I'm afraid it might serve to just annoy or even scare off the movie fan who isn't necessarily a Pixar/Disney fan.

It's funny.  Pixar- with its focus on quality, innovation and story- has always been playing the long game.  They knew that making the best movies possible was going to secure their place in history and in the hearts of the moviegoing public.  It's just a happy coincidence that they also happen to be enormously popular.  I'll see POTC2 at least once.  If it's good, twice, like the last one.  Cars?  Twice at least.  If it's as good as we're hearing it is, I'll see it all summer long.  

OK Jim...let's at least add some context to your "animated grosses", thanks to rottentomatoes.com.

I'll leave the top 4 alone, since they were blockbusters.

"Curious George"  69%

"Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit"  95%

"Tim Burton's The Corpse Bride"  83%

"Hoodwinked", 47%

"The Wild", 19%

"Valiant", 28%

"Doogal", 5%

Now, I'd agree, your first 3 (which only did middlingly well) were vastly underappreciated films at the Box office (in particular, Wallace and Grommit).  But there were mitigating factors in eacy release that should be taken into account, too.

But to try to show any sort of "trend" including those last 4 movies...you might wanna rethink that.  Because I'd venture that the fact they were animated had less to do with their performance than the fact that they all stunk.  Stunk to high heaven.  Stunk, in most cases, to the point of being neigh unwatchable.

That, I think, may have borne mentioning within your article...if for no other reason than to add a bit of pertinent context.

One of the things that bugs me most about a number of today's CGI films - and "Monster House" is a prime example, with "Polar Express" also fitting the bill - is that these films seem to feel the need to animate real human characters that could've just as easily been done with real human (child) actors.  Leaving the house, etc as CG projects.

I watched the preview for "Monster House" yesterday and once again was struck how it seemed very "Goonies"-esque, which did just fine as a live action.

If you want to CG-animate fish, cars, bugs, toys, monsters, even super-heros - fine.  Even sharks, ogres, prehistoric/zoo/barnyard animals, that's great.  But when the only characters in the movie are human, why bother?

Oh, of course.  It's probably cheaper.  How silly of me.

I dunno, pilferk, I liked "Hoodwinked."

But certainly the public is having a reaction to all the flood of crap that's trying to tap Shrek's success. I don't think it's a mistake to think that "Cars" might be tainted by it, particularly on opening weekend. Yes, I think the Pixar name makes a difference and protects the movie from sliding into the pattern followed by Chicken Little, Valiant, and Doogal, but on a gut level, those that aren't paying that close attention to the difference in studios and the nature of the industry will have gut-level nausea at first sight of any CG film.

That's why I'm not worried about overmarketing - it makes the message clear to the fence sitters that "Cars" is a whole different kind of product. That this movie is a must-see blockbuster already. For some people, it might get on their nerves, but I can't imagine it would actually scare anybody away from the movie, unless they're so manic they would personally boycott a movie to make a point, knowing the message wouldn't ever be received. Sometimes marketing is meant to get consumers curious or hyped about a movie. In a few cases, it's to train the consumers that this movie will be so big, they simply aren't permitted to miss opening weekend.

I will say, I think seeing the actors providing voices for the movie appearing on Leno and Letterman creates a more effective buzz than having Cars-themed fruit snacks, but that's just me. I would rather have seen more of that sort of thing.

Also--as usual--let's get a little historical perspective:
Finding Nemo and Incredibles did runaway business, but they also had great competition to play off of.
Nemo, of course, was infamous for trouncing studios' "Sequel summer"--"The year we didn't want to see anything else"--and seeing those expressions on the Hulk, Lara Croft, and the Terminator as they all went down, one-two-three, before the mighty orange fish..
Incredibles?---Good, yes, but try remembering how good it was back then WITHOUT also mentioning its public pantsing of a certain creepy train conductor.

Which is the biggest obstacle for Cars:  Not that this summer is too "good" to be competition, just that it isn't BAD enough--It just doesn't have that rewarding feeling of "victory" yet to bring that repeat business that Nemo had.   With X-Men, Superman and Pirates, this seems like not too bad a summer, and no reason to go running to Pixar for "safety".
Oh, sure, there's "Monster Express", and "Antz Bully" (yes, same designs), to make us feel smug about rallying the flag for Lasseter, but this year, "Cars" is all out there on its own--There's just no flop big enough this year to get the same old comfortable nyah-nyah of "Going to see Nemo just to *p-ss Terminator 3 off!*...  :)  "

Barry, I know with Polar Express, they chose animation specifically because they wanted to duplicate the style of illustration in the book, and it was noticable and successful. I don't know about Monster House, though. But sometimes, it's just because it happens to be an animation rather than live-action studio that has the story to tell.

Makes for an interesting new category at the Oscars:

Best Computer Generated Actor in a Leading Role . . .

"I dunno, pilferk, I liked "Hoodwinked." "

Of the 4, it was certainly the best.  The other 3 were so incredibly awful...I'm suprised they made as much as they DID.  You could certainly "spin" it that way too.  That comparably BAD movies made considerably less money...I'm not sure you'd have much of a case, but then again...I'm not sure Jim does, either.

But Hoodwinked  was no Monsters, Inc...or The Incredibles...or Finding Nemo...

Even to put it in perspective of it's contemporaries:

It was no Corpse Bride, or Wallace and Gromit, or even Curious George.

That's just my point:  Attributing the movies poor performance SIMPLY to the fact they were animated might be a bit of a stretch.  I'd like to think that quality does still have SOME effect on a movie's BO take.  Maybe that's a bit naive' on my part, I'll admit.....

I saw the film at a charity preview Saturday in Oklahoma City, and I don't think it's going to have any problem. The audience all laughed loudly -- especially during the slapstick tractors scene -- and I even heard a few sniffles during the more poignant moments.

And I've heard people at my workplace talk casually -- without prompting from me -- about going to the opening on Friday. This was already in their plans a week before it arrived in theaters.

I don't care about some arbitrary number on opening weekend. One thing I've noticed about Pixar films is they have legs -- they keep grossing money in fat numbers for weeks and weeks. Next thing you know, you look up, and Pixar's quietly passed the $200 million mark again.

Here's another thing that's been overlooked: This is the first film that seems to take NASCAR somewhat seriously (I don't count that awful Tom Cruise movie from 15-odd years ago). The NASCAR audience is humongous. The film's stock-car racing angle alone is going to bring them out in droves.

Even so, I wouldn't be surprised if this film breaks the $100 million mark on its first weekend. If not, I don't care that much -- unless it's an outright flop.

I love the movie, and I'm going to see it again. It's a visual feast.

I've never wasted my time counting other people's money. All I care about is if it's a good film. PIXAR has delivered in the past, and from the advanced reviews I've seen, this one is another gem.

Oh, and not to quibble, Jim (and again, leaving the whole "Disney's Mel Gibson movie" thing aside), but:
Santa Clause 3 may have a few audience Christmas-mentality guns for opening the first North-Pole-and-sugarplums movie of November, regardless of quality. (Which is how #2 unfairly delivered "Treasure Planet" to an early grave three years ago--Bitter? Oh, a tad.)

But "Invincible" having "Disney sleeper potential"?  0_o??
JIm...it's "The Rookie Plays Football".  Disney's had a case of "Remember the Titans" on the brain for several years now, is seriously, DANGEROUSLY glutted with Inspirational Sports Movies (and okay, so "Miracle" was pretty good, but who noticed?), and they're becoming more disposable by the minute.  We've had five in the last eighteen months--That, friends, is a Cry For Help.
Glory Road had an empty February all to itself, and even *that* couldn't make us notice--For the studio, it's becoming one big Jenga game, watching them stack one Sports Movie more shakily on top of another, while the rest of us watch the whole stack teeter, waiting for it to collapse...

PingBack from http://bullfrog117.wordpress.com/2006/06/05/relativity-explains-reality-not-free-ipods-and-cars-expectations-the-film-stupid/

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet:

I don't think Hoodwinked, The Wild, Valiant, & Doogal got much publicity anyways.  That would probably one of the main factors they failed.  I didn't even know about Doogal until after a week in theaters.

 "And please tell us, Jim, that you're not falling victim to the '02 Sinbad lure of 'Every animated movie is the same, that's why audiences go to them!  :)' "

 Um, Sinbad was released in '03.


 "-While IA2 is the somewhat more frightening cult, with its dark cabal of stalkers who dream of shooting Donkey to prove their love to the Squirrel.  To them, no other scenes in the movie exist.  And don't mind telling you, it's kind of creepy.   0_0"

  Yeah,  like those who go to Finding Nemo a third time just to spite Terminator 3.  That...is a bit creepy too. :)

  J/K  :D

" Yeah,  like those who go to Finding Nemo a third time just to spite Terminator 3.  That...is a bit creepy too. :) "
---
No, as most of us remember it, it was rushing to be first in line for the coolest "big-guns" summer opening, burning your ten bucks on a bad Hulk/T3/Tomb Raider/Fast&Furious/BadBoys/Charlie's Angels2 experience, feeling frustrated about wanting to see a *good* summer movie, and going back to the one known quantity you liked, just to get the bad aftertaste of the last one out.

...And that summer, we had a LOT of frustration-experiences that didn't live up to the marketing.  '03 may have been a record year.  And each one ka-ching'ed another repeat ticket for Marlon & Dory, as a hot July and August wore on.

From pilferk: "Attributing the movies poor performance SIMPLY to the fact they were animated might be a bit of a stretch."

Oh, I absolutely agree with that. They performed poorly because they were bad, no question. I am saying that because they were so poor and because there have been enough of those to weary the public, that even Pixar's new movie may be affected. I mean that not because I feel anything Pixar has produced is a part of that trend, but because I'm not entirely convinced the general public is keeping track and separating Pixar's trend from the industry trend.

So I also believe that, as you say, "quality does still have SOME effect on a movie's BO take." The buzz on this movie will certainly get the money in eventually. But bringing it back to the article, Pixar might get less on the opening weekend specifically than it has in the past because the crap from other studios might have damaged their interest in catching any animated film at first opportunity instead of waiting for lines to die down. Or to get back to my original point, it might, if Disney/Pixar wasn't promoting enough to separate it from the pack even prior to opening weekend.

It seemed to me at the time that Hoodwinked got plenty of promotion, as did Valiant.  The Wild was buried during production, when it became clear that it needed redesigned, rewritten and it needed retooling to seperate it from Madagascar. The lack of promotion was purely because DFA wanted to bury it with as few witnesses as possible.  

Hoodwinked, in my opinion, was a success partly because of its saturation advertising.  I really hated that POS.  It was underwritten, underacted, and watching the 'making of' on the DVD was like watching a recreation of cavemen making a canoe.  The production sketches were just terrible. It looked like character design phase happened over a long lunch and character modeling finished out that day.  Making "Shrek" on the cheap with student interns (or their professional equivalent) is not something that should be admired or rewarded with success.  A lousy Shrek knockoff by a small company is in some ways harder to accept than a big company making a lousy "Madagascar" clone.  

"A lousy Shrek knockoff by a small company is in some ways harder to accept than a big company making a lousy "Madagascar" clone"
---
...CORE Digital is a "big company"? 0_o??

(Ohh, *I* see, you meant Sony and "Open Season" ripping off Madagascar!--
Heh, for a second there, sounded like you were still doing that goofy "Disney musta ripped off DW, because DW's movie was FIRST!  :p " thing we thought we'd buried three months ago..And we *know* nobody still buys that dopey Jeff-thought-it-up mainstream line anymore, do we?)  :)

Well, it looks like Cars is aiming at a 63Mil opening weekend, so according to Jim it may be seen as box office let down (source: Box Office Mojo).  What has not been brought up is that this movie has legs (er, wheels?).  This may be one of those movies that actually has a higher BO the second week, as word of mouth spreads.  Many who shyed away thinking it was for Nascar fans will be drawn by their friends who enjoyed it.  I heard one youngster last night immediately tell his mother "I want to see that again" - she chuckled and said "I think we can do that".  This holds up to repeated viewing, so basing success (or lack thereof) only on opening box could be premature.

I've seen it twice, and will probably see it again.

Moonliner, I somewhat disagree. I took my wife and my three sons to see it today and I think, like other reviews have stated, it's good, not great. It was also about 20 minutes too long - the middle section in the small town was WAY too long, and a lot of little behinds (not just my sons) were fidgeting. When asking them if they want to see it again, they all said no and my oldest who is eight said "ask me in six months." I think that if Joe Ranft had not passed away mid-production the movie would have been a lot tighter and more moving (that's the kind of thing, I understand, he brought to projects). I hope that I'm wrong and future Pixar projects are as impactful and wonderful as they have been in the past but I think the superb run may have ended with Cars as the "secret sauce" (Ranft) is no longer with us.

<i>Disney's spin machine went into overdrive yesterday, as the Mouse tried to explain away why it wasn't actually disappointed that "Cars" (Which had originally been projected to take in $70 - $75 million) only managed to make $62.8 million

PingBack from http://rwarn17588.wordpress.com/2006/06/12/was-the-opening-weekend-of-cars-a-disappointment/

PingBack from http://veryangel.cn/index.php/movies/13479/were-the-opening-weekend-grosses-of-cars-a-disappointment-route-66-news

Disney's spin machine went into overdrive yesterday, as the Mouse tried to explain away why it wasn't actually disappointed that "Cars" (Which had originally been projected to take in $70 - $75 million) only managed to pull in $60.1 million over its opening

PingBack from http://www.bullfrog117.com/unfiltered/?p=201