Wow, this has become the most cheerful spot on the internet lately.

I thought the movie was great by the way, I'm sorry a $62.8 million is not an underperformance if this were a dreamworks film none would speak of an underperformance whatsoever. Knowing how good it is I think word of mouth will be very good and it will do just fine against "tokyo Drift".

So where were you when Over the Hedge under perform.I even took you to task over it on the forum! http://jimhillmedia.com/forums/thread/2523.aspx

Oh thats right you had that freak streak of bad luck with the storm etc.And you wonder why people give you such a hard time where it comes to you being critical about Disney.

Congratulations to Pixar & Disney on yet another massive hit.While not on the scale of Nemo or Incredibles,it just goes to show how investment analysts are clueless,because its still a solid number.And there shouldn't be expecting Pixar to top each film there make,its simply too much to ask of any studio!

If all they can do is look at the numbers and not at how good this movie actually was, that's very stupid of them. Typical, I suppose, but stupid. The movie is classic. I have already seen it three times and it only gets funnier. And anyone to call it a "lemon" or boring is so typical...and wrong. The movie sends out such a good message that bashing it and calling it a failure is so shallow and as I mentioned, typical.

Plus with such high expectations of the film, I'm sure people were sitting around just waiting to write up a negative review and call it a failure because it fell short of expectations just to throw Disney this, "You paid too much for Pixar!"

Following this path of thought - we best get rid of Lassetter as soon as possible - he's dragging this combined company down.

I haven't seen any of those "expert" analysts point out this is almost a 2 hour movie - when you increase the running time up from 90 minutes, you lose one showtime per day. Now, take any of those other Pixar movies and subtract the grosses from three showings during opening weekend. It's a large chunk of change. Now I wouldn't expect an analyst to realize that, because they've never worked in a movie theatre or for a movie studio. All they did was compare opening weekend gross totals, without any "expert" analysis.

Sadly, Chuck, the high paid spin doctor, didn't point the running time difference out either.

Analysts go with the theory that each movie has to outgross its predecessor. It's a horrid system, but Cars was specifically positioned as a monster hit. The theatre I went to see it at today had 2 screens showing it at 4:30.

I don't get how this is a huge dissappointment either.  Just because it made a crapload of money instead of a s***load of money is rediculous.  I bet theta this will stay at number one next week too without any significan drop over 30% mainly because it's a lot better than any of the movies you set up on your drop off meter.  Heck, Narnia was one of the most successful of last year and had a very similar opening.  What's wrong with you Jim?  Cup half empty all the time?

Y'know, if we're gonna discount the thought process involving potential weekday grosses for days that haven't happened yet, I imagine we should also discount the thought process involving second weekend drop-offs for a film in its first weekend...

Anyone besides me feel like Jim already had this story written and just filled in the applicable dollar amounts before posting it?

The film was awesome ... I think it took a bit of a ding from mediocre early reviews, but in this case word of mouth will be enough to compensate. It'll stay strong and it's final gross will be just fine.

My opinion is this is the best Pixar film yet.

Join us Jim and you will discover just how powerful you can become.

Seriously though, I have always scoffed at those mouse-wing wackos that say you always spin negatively about Disney.  This one was a stretch Dude, you really had to look and dig for this one.

Remember, anger and hate are a path to the dark side.

I basically agree with everyone else. When you're at the top of the heap, knocking you down becomes a semiprofessional sport. To spin Cars, a wonderful movie beautifully made with a charming and touching story, as anything other than a triumph based on the fact that it might end up being just a hit as opposed to a _smash_ hit is bizarre, to say the least.

I don't know about anywhere else, but Friday, the theaters (playing Cars) were DEAD. I mean at our local 7:20 PM show, the theater was less than 1/2 full. By Sunday though, it was jumping. The 10:50 AM showing had an 80%+ house. I think that people were not really interested in another Incredibles or Finding Nemo (both good movies, but it gets a little old), but once word of mouth got out that Cars was much better (at least in the opinion of everyone I have asked) the theaters starting filling up. I think it is going to have a great first full week / second weekend. Just my prediction.

I don't know why Jim has been all over John and company lately. When I read the article last week, I could already see that Jim couldn't wait to write this type of article.
I loved Cars! So much that I saw it twice, once on Friday and once on Saturday! And guess what? It got better on the second viewing.
I hope this movie continues to do well this week. Maybe it will shut some of the more harsh critics up!

You know why don't we all wait until next weekend to see what Cars is going to finish.  That will determine if it will finish above 200 million, which if you read most box office analysis websites say it shouldn't be a problem.

Here's a few of my observations... When I saw the previews for Cars, I right away said "this is going to be an awesome boys movie!" My three year old twin boys went nuts when they first saw the toys in the stores, so we all went on Saturday morning at 10 AM. It was almost fully sold out and several of the showtimes over the the day around the city were sold out at 9 AM. My wife really liked the movie, but it wasn't at the top of her Pixar list. She really thought it was a great movie, but she could see how girls just won't be into it nearly as much as boys. The previous comments about the movie length is also true. The theaters are short on showtimes as the film is two hours long.

I thought it was terrific and another Pixar classic. Nothing satisfies the Wall Street morons today. It is the most unrealistic bunch of people on the planet and they dictate how these companies operate. Disney made countless moves in the later Eisner years to please Wall Street and most all of those moves oversaturated the consumer market with Disney goods and never moved the stock. Sorry for the diatribe, but it's amazing how things are judged by analysts who don't know x from y in certain businesses.

"'Cars' was No. 1 at the box office this past weekend", "the second highest opening weekend gross EVER for a film that was released in the month of June": Those statements right there prove that it's a hit.  Why must you bash it, Jim?
"While at least one of Disney's RIVALS whispered that the opening weekend grosses for 'Cars' were actually much, much lower that that"- duh...it's a rival.  They don't want to say anything nice about Disney/Pixar.
"And- in anyone's ballpark- $60 million is a home run"- true.
Tickets will be sold throughout the summer.  Remember what happened with 'The Emperor's New Groove'?  That movie's first weekend gross was less than later weeks.  Give 'Cars' time.
"Expectations were unnaturally high for 'Cars'"...people need to take each movie as it comes and stop comparing them.  When 'Findng Nemo' is 50 years old, people are still going to be comparing the new Pixar movies to it's gross, huh?
Plenty of people watch the World Cup in the U.S.; my husband went to work early today so he could take a 2-hr. lunch break to watch it.  Just a side note.
'The Fast and the Furious' is not a family film.  No competition there.
I'm going to go and see 'Cars' a second time; the only other movie I've seen at the theater twice was 'Monsters, Inc.'.
I agree with Curmudgeon- longer movie, less showtimes; good point!
And, I agree with WDWacky- it's the best Pixar film yet, IMO.
I saw 'Cars' Friday at it's first showing at this theater, 12pm, and it was pretty dead.  Of course the large, loud family sat right behind me...
And, lastly, I'm a girl/woman, and I'm not into automobiles, but I loved the movie.  Honestly, even without seeing any ads for it, I'd see it just because it's a Disney/Pixar film.
Those were the thoughts I jotted down while reading...sorry for the length!

Regarding the "Cuddle Factor", I disagree.  My son is 3.  He has slept the past two nights with a toy Lightning McQueen.  His grandmother picked up the entire set from McDonald's.  Our kids are in love with these toys and characters.  But then again, Daniel does like to sleep with a Transformer toy too.  Maybe my kids are weird.  ;)

Our son did fall asleep in the movie but that doesn't mean he didn't love it.  If it weren't $35 (tickets + popcorn) for the entire family to go to the movies, we'd be going again soon.  Personally, it's the ticket price that keeps me away from movies.  For $27, I can buy the DVD and pick up a pizza.

Glad y'all liked "Cars."  So did I.  Watch Disney's stock price today, and *then* come back and tell Jim he's wrong.

We saw it last night and we all LOVED it. For anyone who hasn't, you have to stay all the way through the credits, and I mean ALL the way... until you see the blue "Rated G" screen. Is it Pixar's best -- certainly not, but trying to rank it is like trying to rank your own children. It's funny as all get out, heartwarming, and has a great message. And for a movie with such a well-worn storyline, it was also surprising. It took a few turns that I wasn't expecting, and it's message was different from what I was expecting, too. And as with all Pixar films, the beauty is in the details. There's so much detail and tiny, beautiful touches and throw-away jokes, you'll probably have to see it at least three times or so to come close to catching them all. Can't wait to get it in DVD so I can freeze-frame through certain parts.

I think this movie will have great word-of-mouth. It's a shame that Wall Street et al (looking at you, Jim) just couldn't wait for this movie to "fail" (and having to redefine "failure" to do so). But as they say in Hollywood, Cars will have "legs," and will eventually prove the naysayers wrong. Yes, it's missing the cuddle factor, but not every Pixar film can be a Finding Nemo-sized hit. Not all of Walt's films out-sold their predecessors, either, but over time they all proved to have staying power. It's not just about the money. Which, incidentally, is part of the message of "Cars."

Wow.  Jim and the pixar hate must run deep.  Let's see anyone open $62 million and say that's a disappointment.  Everyone talks about Cars being a boys only movie, but what about the Incredibles?  Besides Elastigirl and violet, that was a boys movie.  As for the cars can't be alive thing, wow have we come a long way in 50 years.  Talk to anyone who was a teenager 50 years ago.  They'll tell you cars are alive and have personalities.  This is a ode to that culture as much as the movie American Graffiti.

So, if we take this "each film must out perform the previous one, or it's a flop" theory, then sometime in 2012, if every single person in the United States doesn't go see the latest Pixar film on the opening weekend, the movie flopped.  Every single person.  No one stays home, or it flops.  

2nd highest June opening ever.  There are studios out there that would kill to have a 62 million dollar opening.  

Robots stunk.  That's why it didn't do well.  As did the other films.  It wasn't metal vs. fur.  It's quality vs. crap.  

How aggravating.

How does one become a critic? What does a critics resume say? How are they more qualified than I to tell anyone what they thought about a movie? And how it projected. How does Jim Hill make a decent enough living to travel and send his minions to all these events and things?

I wish it was my job to sit around all day and *** and moan.. er.. I mean critique Disney.

Cars was good. More 'quality' of a movie than Nemo. Nemo was great. But it was full of easy gags. Cars has sustinance. A real lesson. Real warmth.

While real people around the country get laid off, why is there still a position of analyst, or critic. (that was rhetorical. I'm aware that companies need to know how much they gained or lost before a project actually hits consumers) Its just such a fluff job.

Everyone I know who saw it, enjoyed Cars. The merchandise is everywhere. And Disney has another hit on their hands. Who cares that it missed its projection... when youve got 62 million. Whats another 10?

Disney stock dropped 3% at the opening today.  What's another 2 billion dollars in market cap?  There are a lot of people who care that it missed its projection.

Look, I'm not happy about this, and I doubt Jim is either.  The flick underperformed big-time.  That's the cold, hard, unvarnished news.  He's reporting the news.  Disney can spin it any way they want, and so apparently can posters on this board.

Quality vs. crap, eh?  Didja go see "Spirited Away?"  "Wallace and Grommet?" "Triplets of Belleville?"  

Yep.  I thought not.  John Lasseter would NOT be proud.

With all the hype over Cars in the last week, my family decided not to go opening weekend and instead go this Tuesday. I think many families (especially with young children) have been thinking the same. Besides, you can't really count a "weekend" during the summer, especially with a movie aimed to kids. You really have to consider that many will be going during the week.

And to the poster that suggested JH had written this article already and just filled in the numbers, I'm sure that right. I had predicted a couple of weeks ago that no matter how well Cars had done, there would be a negative article about it on JHM.

Best movie I've seen since Pirates of the Carribbean. Most engaged audience in the theater that I've seen since then, too, which was packed, by the way. And I'm one who had my doubts about "Cars." Not really a car fan, for starters, and I just didn't there would be any way to make them human enough to relate to, and the fact that the characters were cars would be more of a hook than a part of an engaging storyline.

Jim, I know that you're just taking the business world's perspective for the purpose of this article, but you have to admit, the way you've written it makes it sound like you agree with the analysts. That $62 million for an opening weekend shows that Pixar cost more than it was worth. I think you're a little caught up in it. That one number (besides being a mighty good number) is just one statistic in a sea of data. If the analysts (which analysts by the way - all of them?), put as much weight on one opening weekend for one movie as you say they are, I'll continue doing my own investing, thanks.

And I think when Disney bought Pixar, it bought its newest Renaissance. Not one movie with the Pixar logo on it every year and a half, but a whole new leadership in animation and a new commitment to quality. You've already mentioned how the Pixar acquisition is affecting upcoming projects like "Meet the Robinsons."

mawnck: "Disney stock dropped 3% at the opening today.  What's another 2 billion dollars in market cap?  There are a lot of people who care that it missed its projection."

What are you, a day trader? Give it a minute, and see what happens. Nobody said the analysts weren't saying what Jim reported - just that their expectations are unrealistic and not an indication of genuine success or failure.

There's an article on CNN Money about the Disney stock drop. Has nothing to do with Cars's box office. In fact, Citibank raised their target price for the stock to $32 from $30 based on the aquisition of Pixar. The price drop is because Citi dropped their rating based on their ability to meet their EPS for 2007.

As far as the cuddle factor ... tell my 4 year old daughter there's no cuddle factor. She cast aside her favorite stuffed animal she's had since birth to go to school with her stuffed Sally this morning.

The citigroup downgrade hurt the stock price, too.

And the market is weak to start to start the week pending a whole slew of stuff coming out this week, and investors being nervous about what that brings.

I think we all know it's WAY too early to call this a "failure" of any kind of noticeable proportions.  The truth is that the financial "story" of Cars won't be known for at least a few weeks, possibly months, and perhaps even a couple of quaters (when the DVD hits...considering it's a 2 hour long movie, it's not a stretch to consider those with younger tots may wait).  So I think the "doom and gloom" might be a bit premature, as yet.

The sad thing is that "Cars" didn't rake in as much money as it could for VERY specific reasons - namely, almost all the trailers and preview spots sucked, and a lot of people don't find cars or racing appealing.  I couldn't get ANYONE to see the movie with me on Saturday - I had to go by myself.  When I can con my sisters or my mom into seeing a Pixar film with me, I know that something is very, very wrong.

--> Plus with such high expectations of the film, I'm sure people were sitting around just waiting to write up a negative review and call it a failure because it fell short of expectations just to throw Disney this, "You paid too much for Pixar!"<---

That's the problem.  I was expecting the next great Pixar hit, having been groomed by past successes.  Incredibles - "Great!  I want the dvd today. Can't wait to see it again."

... and I was disappointed.  I had high expectations, but this isn't another Pixar smash, imo.  It's just another movie.  There's all these Nascar voice and car industry references.  Doesn't click with me - don't know who they are, or particularly care that they are doing cameos.  Big sentimental song?  Sorry, I may like the characters, but I don't really have an affinity for a lost town of the past.  Speaking of the characters, what's with the stereotype low rider Mexican, Italian Ferrari lovers, black store owner with an attitude?  Nothing fresh there.  A hotel carved into the side of a mountain?  Who cares?  There's no backstory, no reason for me to care.  Our star is a jerk at the beginning.  Well sort of.  He's not really that much of a jerk that his redemption is a big deal.

Of course, it was gorgeous, and the animation was first rate, but it ain't the next big Pixar hit, imo.

BTW, Pixar stock ALWAYS dropped the Monday after a release, as expectations had been built into the price for weeks before.  It's nothing new.  But it isn't going to jump back up in the next day or two.

What ever!

The Disney share price going down today is a short term situation,all Wall Street will care about is the next quater where Disney will be able to celebrate how well Cars has done for the Studio.Then we take into account all the merchadise the company will take in the next few months for consumer products and add on top the international box office,and things are going to be looking very good for that share price.Which by the end of today would of probarely gone back up to its previous trading.Did Jim mention any of that in todays article,nope he only took into acount what Cars did in its opening weekend in one country.Well I got news for Jim there is a whole world out there besides America!

The movie has in no way underperform,unlike DreamWork's Animations Over the Hedge has done,but we havn't heard Jim mention a word about that.Probarely because he sold out to them by having the pro Over the Hedge articles posted on this site.DreamWork's are in a far more serious situation right now,as ever since it took the Animation side public its stock has been underperforming,and it wouldn't suprise me if its in line for a takeover soon.Cars is just another movie and its suscess is not going to make or break the company in the long run.Also what people also forget is now that Disney & Pixar are now one company all profits are no longer split between both like before.

Oh by the way Disney don't need to spin anything the facts are clearly there.Well done John Lasseter

One other thing to consider - 'Cars' was released when kids are off doing every other thing - Summertime.  The other Pixar releases were late fall/early winter releases, when a lot of the country is looking for indoor activities.

I'm pretty sure this movie is going to have legs... or wheels, if you prefer.  If you think it's a flop, well, just keep taking hits off of that crack pipe.

I agree with what everyone says. I just don't see how you have the second highest opening in the month of June ever and call this a flop. The point about a longer run time is very true. It's the reason most studios won't allow long movies anymore. Over the Hedge was a great and fun movie, but it clocked in at and hour and a half. There were showings almost every 45 minutes. That just wasn't the case with cars.

I saw it at a drive in theater, which I admit only has one showing a day, but that place was packed. I mean literally no more room. I'm lucky I found a spot for my car. And everyone there loved it. As I walked to the concession stand between movies all I could hear were kids and adults alike buzzing about the movie.

--> Over the Hedge was a great and fun movie, but it clocked in at and hour and a half. There were showings almost every 45 minutes.<--

If I remember correctly, OTH was showing in two theaters where I saw it.  Cars was showing in three.  In fact, you can check out the schedule:
http://www.greatescapetheaters.com/theater.asp?q_zip=&q_theaterid=22

How about that?  Starts every half hour in three theaters.  Goes the running time of the film, then starts again.

Check out the AMC 24 at Pleasure Island:
http://www.fandango.com/TheaterListings.aspx?location=32830&source=cityzipsearch

Same thing.

Some people are impossible to please.

Just because you didnt grow up in small town. Dont know what a carborator is. and Dont know who 'The King' is. Doesnt mean you couldnt enjoy this movie.

On the otherhand, if you sat there saying to yourself. "i didnt live in a small town. I have no feeling"

"I dont like nascar. I cant relate to being in a stadium and watching cars drive by, or caring who wins"

"I dont know WHO they're referencing. Im not enjoying celebrities I dont know"

Then you were set up to fail.

I dont live in a small town, i dont like nascar, i coudlnt point out my carborator, and Richard Petty is that guy with the hat with feathers and he has a mustache right?  

And even more... I HATE Larry the Cable Guy. I hate everything he stands for. His standup comedy isnt funny to me.

But man did i LOL at this movie. And i loved Mater. I shed a tear during the 'small town' song, and i just loved the whole story line. I thought it was exciting to see them racing. AMAZING that animation could look so real.

It never felt like a two-hour movie that dragged on and on. It went by effortlessly and I wondered where the time had gone when it was over.

And no one mentioned the credits! Hilarious!!!!

Anyone who didnt enjoy this movie is in the same boat as these critics and analysts. Nothing but complaining will make you happy. Point out the bright side, but make sure the dark side is apparent as well.

Just enjoy things for what they are.... its a movie... not the apocolypse.

At the risk of getting pummeled, Jim's more or less right here.  The reason "Cars" has "under-performed" is that expectations were so high, and while Pixar previously might have taken steps to caution the industry against being so bullish, Disney did no such thing.

Analysts will look at this and see a lot of warning signs because: 1) Disney just spent a ridiculous amount to purchase Pixar; 2) If Pixar can't continue to outperform itself, there's some caution about relying too heavily on Pixar in the future; 3) The theme parks have become increasingly reliant on Pixar, and if one of the movies fails to achieve massive success, it's questionable how much the parks can capitalize on it; 4) The future revenue stream for "Cars" has just been negatively impacted -- it cannot achieve the DVD sales, ancillary (i.e., TV, airline and hotel airings) distribution and licensing revenue that was anticipated when everyone thought the movie would do $300 million.

Disney chose to open "Cars" on a huge number of screens, and it was a major gamble.  The reason movies drop off so precipitously in their second weekend is that everyone who WANTS to see the movie has had a chance to do so opening weekend.  Look at a movie like "Da Vinci Code," which also disappointed critics but had a strong first weekend (stronger than "Cars") -- it has stalled out at less than $200 million, and will only slightly exceed that in the U.S.

Bear in mind that many movies, like "Da Vinci," achieve a majority of their box-office revenue outside of the U.S.  But "Cars" alienates most non-U.S. audiences by focusing on NASCAR racing, a concept that is not appreciated in the rest of the world.  Global revenue is diminished quite a bit, and may only match what has been made in the U.S.  Consider, too, that the movie's foreign launch is being delayed due to the World Cup, and you have to factor in that pirated DVDs will take a big chunk of revenue away from "Cars" overseas given how much time will elapse between its U.S. and global opening.  (The bigger the window, the more opportunity for pirates.)

The reason the $62.8 million opening is so "disappointing" has nothing to do with the quality of the movie, but with the expectations that had been foisted upon it and the very real economics of the movie industry.  It's a hit-driven business, and increasingly those hits have one to two weeks to make the majority of their revenue.

Might "Cars" have legs?  It's certainly possible, but every indication from historical numbers tells you that it's now unlikely to pass $200 million in the U.S., and when a movie costs (with prints, advertising and marketing) more than $150 million, there's a lot of disappointment in a number like that.

I haven't seen Cars yet and unless my family is going to see it, I'm not planning to. Will Cars do good? There's 2 sceniarios:
1) Big drop next weekend. Further drops during the premiers of Superman & PotC2. Domestic total somewhere in the ballpark of $150-$200m.
2) Good hold each weekend. Superman & Pirates don't cause too big a drop. Domestic total somewhere in the ball park of $250m.

My guess is the 1st case. I really want this movie to underperform (not bomb, just underperform) to shove it in Lasseter's face that Pixar isn't perfect.

And Jim, should Chronicals of Narnia really have been in your "frontloaded films" list? The movie had a multiplier of over 4.5. That is definitely NOT frontloaded.

The story Jim Hill Media couldn't wait to post.  

Screw this.  

I have to wonder if maybe the title, "Cars" does not have had the same draw as something a little more creative?

How I long for the day when there wasn’t all this “arm-chair” financial analyzing and hypothetical pondering of why a movie is or isn’t doing well.  Will any film EVER live up to Wall Street’s expectations?  And who cares if it does or doesn’t?  It seems a movie’s performance is being based less on how entertaining it is and more on opening day/weekend box office numbers.   I pine for the days when people went to see (or not see) a movie based on a TV or newspaper (or even radio) ad or the local movie critic’s review rather than box office numbers, internet gossip, chat room reviews, or Rotten Tomatoes.com

The Incredibles opened up against Ray, The Grudge, Saw, and Alfie.

Monsters Inc. opened up against The One, Domestic Disturbance, K-PAX, and Thirteen Ghosts.

Cars had to contend with X3, DaVinci, The Break-Up, and Over the Hedge (something which few Pixar films have had, popular animated competition).  On Nemo faced similar odds going up against Bruce Almighty, The Italian Job, and The Matrix Reloaded (and Nemo was a phenomenon I don't think will be easily repeated).

The point is that these films don't exist in a vaccuum.  Cars "only" pulling in $62 million is more an indication of a crowded marketplace filled with films people want to see rather than an indictment of Cars' appeal.

And judging by the reaction of the kids in the audience I saw it with, repeat business will be fine.

Greenyskp, you took the words right out of my mouth...

"I dont live in a small town, i dont like nascar, i coudlnt point out my carborator, and Richard Petty is that guy with the hat with feathers and he has a mustache right?  

And even more... I HATE Larry the Cable Guy. I hate everything he stands for. His standup comedy isnt funny to me.

But man did i LOL at this movie. And i loved Mater. I shed a tear during the 'small town' song, and i just loved the whole story line. I thought it was exciting to see them racing. AMAZING that animation could look so real."

That is absolutely right on the money.  This was a fantastic movie with amazing animation and a heartfelt story.  I couldn't care less about NASCAR, and yet the racing scenes had me leaning forward in my seat.  I despise Larry the Cable Guy, but found Mater to be a wonderful character.  Now I'm not here to argue with Jim, but there's a reason I hate investing. I'd rather look at the quality of something and not worry about numbers.  There were unrealistic box office expectations that were not met.  End of story for me...I went this weekend to try and help out, to save the bashing, but it doesn't mean that anyone should assume that it's not a great movie or that it won't be a financial success.

--->Just because you didnt grow up in small town. Dont know what a carborator is. and Dont know who 'The King' is. Doesnt mean you couldnt enjoy this movie.<---

The movie was ok.  I had a good time watching it.  I never said I didn't.  But to me, it isn't the rewatchable movie that The Incredibles or even Nemo is.  I didn't set it up to fail.  I told you I went in with high expectations, built up from previous successes, rhetoric and advertising.  And you know what?  It couldn't stand up to all that.  It's just an ok movie.  It won't be getting repeat business from me.  I'm going to catch Superman and Pirates coming up.

"I really want this movie to underperform (not bomb, just underperform) to shove it in Lasseter's face that Pixar isn't perfect. "

wow

I mean really,   wow

wonder if any of the expert analysts or Disney spokespeople feel the same way?
something tells me they do

so are they looking at this situation objectively?
um, probably not

Don't listen to askmike ... he's got an Eisner fetish ...

As far as Cars goes, the entire argument flop vs. non-flop is absurd. It had the highest opening weekend gross of all but two Pixar films (Nemo and Incredibles).

Was Toy Story a flop? How about TSII? They both opened lower! What, just because Cars opened AFTER Nemo and Incredibles it HAD to do better? That's just dumb, man, and as someone previously stated it just reflects the RIDICULOUS attitudes that Wall Street has today. There's NO FRIGGIN' WAY every Pixar film is going to open bigger than the last. It's completely impossible, especially so with this movie. I don't think it was the immediate draw for girls that most of the other Pixar films were (cute fish = more appealing to a girl than a car).

All that aside it was a GREAT MOVIE! I don't like NASCAR one bit and I still loved it. It's a GOOD STORY ... remember those?? I realize we've been choking down Disney schlock like Treasure Planet, Home on the Range, and Chicken Little the last few years, but folks .... a good story is a good story. This is one of them. Go see it if you haven't. If you have, go see it again.

Again ... I'm betting that the positive word of mouth for this film will keep theaters full next weekend.

I really dont understand how 62 million dollars can be a dissapointment.
Come on!!! People have waisted to many words if the movie its good or bad or why it didnt top the previous films, if pixar's "luck" has run out, etc, etc. .... at the end day.... 62 million dollars is a lot of money!!!!

"The movie was ok.  I had a good time watching it.  I never said I didn't.  But to me, it isn't the rewatchable movie that The Incredibles or even Nemo is.  I didn't set it up to fail.  I told you I went in with high expectations, built up from previous successes, rhetoric and advertising.  And you know what?  It couldn't stand up to all that.  It's just an ok movie.  It won't be getting repeat business from me.  I'm going to catch Superman and Pirates coming up."

If you had a good time watching it... then why all the complaining? And who said anything about re-watchability? I rarely go see movies again. Unless they come to our local $ theater. Then i might go again. I dont think Disney/Pixar is necessarily counting on those will see it again and again.

And are you that much of a (no offense) consumer sheep, that when someone on TV told you that Cars was gonna be the movie of the summer, you got your hopes up that high? If your not a Nascar fan, and the teaser trailers have sucked... how the heck did you get your hopes up? And how old are you that you havent already learned in life, that walking into ANYTHING with high, unatainable expectations is going to set yourself up for failure.

I also will be catching Superman and Pirates. (pirates will get repeat business from me. Mostly because seeing a 10 foot tall johnny depp dressed like a pirate is a fantasy, along with many other women, i'm sure)

And i'm sorry to pick you apart, But i think you represent a lot of consumers, especially with having those unatainable expectations set. People do it with WDW all the time.

-->If you had a good time watching it... then why all the complaining? And who said anything about re-watchability? I rarely go see movies again.<--

Because I can.  Because on the story side, those are the things that stood out.  Who said anything about re-watchability?  Everyone that keeps posting about all this repeat business that's going to keep this movie afloat all summer.

I'm not a consumer sheep, but when you get flash put in front of you for the last several months, you build up an expectation.  I worked for Disney for 12 years.  I know how to gauge expectations vs. reality.  I hardly have unattainable expectations.  I expected great renders, and I got that.  Great animation.  Got that.  Attention keeping story?  Didn't find it as much as I would like.

I personally think the movie is great and the whole idea of it underperforming is totally absurd.  

I also think Jim is underestimating the impact of the World cup.
The world cup might not be all that important to the typical american person but it is of significance important to almost  every forgein person that lives in the USA.

The latin comunity is greatly influence by the world cup and they are a major contributor to the movie industry when it comes to family entertainment.
This weekend was not only the first weekend of the world cup but also had several latin american countries competing including Mexico.

I know that my brothers and sisters decided to postpone their visit to see CARS till next weekend because some of their children are in soccer teams and they treated these weekend games as if they were the Super bowl.

Here's another article that exposes the unwavering <strike>ignorance</strike>,  retardation of Wall Street.

Allow me to go over the "excuses" for Cars' "failure"...

<em><strong>The Cuddle Factor</strong>: To most people, cars are cold, metallic objects. Which is why -- in spite of the fact that the folks at Pixar had anthropomorphized all of the autos that appear in their latest motion picture -- these characters still left a lot of potential movie-goers cold (FYI: This is also supposedly why 20th Century Fox's "Robots" didn't do better than it did last year when this Blue Sky Studios film was released to theaters. Audiences supposedly prefer their animated features to star warm-blooded creatures like Manny the Mammoth from "Ice Age" & "Ice Age 2: The Meltdown").</em>

Aren't monsters supposed to be these scary creatures where, aside from attracting kids during Halloween, they otherwise scare them out of their sleep any other time?

<em><strong>"Cars" running time</strong>: Some folks at Disney are attributing this weekend's disappointing box office returns to the movie's running time. Given that this John Lasseter film clocks in at a whopping 1 hour & 56 minutes ... Well, "Cars" excessive length supposedly made it difficult for the multiplexes to get in multiple showings of this motion picture each day.
Which is an interesting theory. Until you realize that "The Incredibles" was 1 hour & 55 minutes long. And given that that Brad Bird film had little or no trouble racking up $70.4 million in ticket sales over its opening weekend ... Well, I hardly think that that one extra minute of running time actually had that significant an impact on "Cars" box office performance over this past weekend.</em>

Nuh-uh. The running time was actually one of the strong points of the film, and the last two Pixar films for that matter. I was recently beginning to think that, in order to explore the movie to its fullest potential, animated films should be allowed to run longer than 75 to 90 minutes.

<em><strong>The film lacked female appeal</strong>: With much of the emphasis in "Cars" trailers & TV commercials being placed on the film's racing sequences (With the hope that these ads might then convince the NASCAR crowd to come out & see this new animated feature), Disney's PR department may have accidentally sent the wrong message to female movie-goers. Convincing this rather large market segment that "Cars" had little if anything that would appeal to and/or entertain women. Hopefully, a new set of commercials might be enough to turn that particular misconception around. </em>

That is an expletive-bleeping lie. I saw Cars with my girlfriend, and she enjoyed it just as much as I did.

And no, <em>this</em> male was never into car racing.

<em><strong>The World Cup<?strong>: Given that Americans are probably the only people on the planet who aren't paying strict attention to what's been going on inside of Munich's Allianz Arena this past weekend, I find it kind of laughable that some people at Disney are actually insisting that ... Well, if all the people in the U.S. who had been watching (via satellite) those football matches in Germany had gone to the multiplex instead, "Cars" would have had a much healthier box office for its opening weekend.</em>

Um...no?

It probably doesn't bother Wall Street that A Bug's Life and The Incredibles, inspite of their progressively strong openings, each earned significantly less overall than the respective films that preceded them. Not that it really means anything, but just to show how daft this entire speculation is.

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

Didn't Roger just write an article about how it's Lasseter's same story, but with cars instead of toys, bugs, superheroes, monsters, or fish? Someone should tell the people at Disney, unlike the olden days of Snow White, people want a story (hold onto your seats, Roy and John) they haven't heard before. To reiterate, we've heard all the stories of the dashing hero saving the damsel in distress, or of the egomaniacal hero learning an important life lesson. Give us something more. Even the kids know this! (See box office numbers) Even Jim's article on "Save 2D Animation" say it: we've seen CGI films. Give us something to think about, something new. Why did everybody and their dog love "The Matrix?" It was new and thought-provoking. Hence, Reloaded and Revolutions underperformed. Why do we love reality television? You can't write that stuff! It's new. It's time for Disney animators to put down the brush and pick up the notebook.

The film, sadly, is a disappointment. Though it's unfair to hold this film up to the high standards set by the previous Pixar films, that's the way things work in American business, and if this film doesn't pick up in the summer, the guys at Pixar will have some explaining to do and may be punished. It's sad, but you're only as good as your last movie. Orson Welles never made a bad movie either, and look what happened to him after "Citizen Kane" and (even more so) the mutilated "The Magnificent Ambersons" failed to make any money.

It may not be fair to hold the film up to high expectations, but the fact is that coupled with inflation and the rise of ticket prices, "Cars" was probably seen by much fewer people than "Monsters, Inc." or "Toy Story 2." And that is a problem.

Disney also screwed the film by releasing it in June. June is not a historically good movie month as July/August and November/December tend to lead to more successful grosses. The fact that "Cars" is the second highest opening for June is nothing but a talking point. "The Omen" had the highest opening for a Tuesday. Is that supposed to mean the film was an outstanding success? Disney should have waited for the Thanksgiving/Christmas holiday, therefore tying the merchandising in to the Christmas buying season. I'm sure thats when they will release the DVD, but it sabotages the theatrical run, and thus the film's aura of success. It may even be that Disney is trying to reign in the power of Pixar by purposely keeping the gross down so that Disney's own in-house releases don't look disappointing in comparison to Pixar's. Case in point: Disney's own "Pirates of the Caribbean" opens in a few weeks, and all the young boys that would see "Cars" will most likely go and see that. "Cars" really didn't have a chance with all the competition it has, although it's probably the best film out there right now.

This film cost millions to make, and millions more to market. If it only clears it's budget by $10-20 million, then the film is not a success. It happens. Sometimes good films are financial failures. Let's be happy it's marginally successful and not a bomb.

Context, the way I see it:


Average Moviegoers don't really distinguish that much between different animation houses. A Dreamworks film is a Blue sky film is a Pixar film. Pixar does stick out as a brand, but none the less people don't always relate a movie to its house. I've often heard people mention any 3d animated feature as a Pixar movie.

I believe people in the back of their minds anticipate Ice Age and Over The Hedge as movies in the animation/Pixar category and thus Cars just becomes number three in a series.

Include the trailers of all upcoming animated flicks and it creates a big blob of an impression, a bunch of animation - all taking significance from the other. In this context Pixar preformed quite well.

Throw in average B to C reviews, 77% on rotten tomatoes and most people saying it's a nice movie but nothing all to special, again the 62 million are quite an accomplishment.

And on Nemo: the numbers just don't count as a guideline - it was a phenomenon not deliberately repeatable and the reasons aren't easily found. Could be the subject fish, the color blue, the posters, the eyes, a different world, coral reefs.. maybe just the right place at the right time. That happens, really!

I believe Pixar had 2 surprisingly amazing hits and now it's back to business as usual, making plain hits...(!)

It's also strange having analysts forget things run in cycles and success is only calculable to a certain degree. I would believe plus minus 10 Million can be blamed on anything, from the weather to news or a general mood. The movie is a huge success, and given it's quite average reviews that's well done.

cheers,
d.

I think the movie is one of Pixar's best... It's lovingly made by true car junkies.  The NASCAR nods are spot on; the movie is filed with beautiful design and jaw-dropping animation.  Plus there's a great little short that plays with the movie.  I'm so thriled that Pixar continues to keep the shorts before the main feature.  It's a nice touch.

And as for Chuck saying "Wait, the kids aren't out of school yet" (which they aren't, although theaters are already showing afternoon matinees):
Welll...THAT'S a rather healthy reversal for a studio whose CEO once yanked one of their big-ticket November releases out of theaters *before* week-after-Christmas school vacation, just because a lot of analysts and execs were falling over themselves to cry "Surprise disaster!" after its first weekend opened below wildly unrealistic pie-in-the-sky "Just like the last movie!" expectations during a crowded-competition weekend while the kids were still in school, isn't it, now?...

(...And why, yes, I *AM* going to work a Treasure Planet defense into every deluded Disney opening-weekend number-crunch, especially when they fit perfectly, why do you ask?)  >: )

I don't know if this was mentioned already, but the actuals bumped down the weekend number to $60.1m. That bumps Cars down to Pixar's FOURTH biggest opening (behind Incredibles, Nemo & Monsters Inc), and just $2.7 million ahead of TS2's opening.

For anyone who says that it's the quality, not BO.... let's look at Rotten Tomatoes

Toy Story 2: 100%
Toy Story: 100%
Finding Nemo: 98%
Incredibles: 97%
A Bug's Life: 91%
Cars: 77%

I find it amazing that if Disney or anyone else makes a new film, it is INSTANTLY compared to PIxar movies like Nemo & Incredibles. Suddenly Pixar makes an underperforming film and everyones saying, "Why are we comparing it to movies like Nemo & Incredibles." A little consistancy is needed people. Either compare everything to Nemo & Incredibles or nothing.

"Then i might go again. I dont think Disney/Pixar is necessarily counting on those will see it again and again."
That's the whole point of the Box Office. After opening weekend (and even including OW), Box Office growth is made almost entirely of repeat visits.


"Someone should tell the people at Disney, unlike the olden days of Snow White, people want a story (hold onto your seats, Roy and John) they haven't heard before."
Really, then why is it that almost every loved Disney movie has the same formula (Prince-like person, Princess-like person, evil villain, funny sidekick, mystical/magical being, musical)? Almost every successful Disney film from Snow White to Hercules followed that formula. There were a few notable exceptions (like Lilo & Stitch, Tarzan & Jungle Book), but the majaroity followed it.


"Hence, Reloaded and Revolutions underperformed."
Reloaded underperformed? Are we talking about the same movie? Reloaded pulled in over $110m more domestically and nearly doubled the worldwide total. Revolutions underperformed (though that was mostly because it premiered a mere 6 months after Reloaded).


"Disney should have waited for the Thanksgiving/Christmas holiday, therefore tying the merchandising in to the Christmas buying season."
The movie was originally slated for November 05 (CL's eventual spot), but got bumped to June 06 when CL got bumped from its original spot of June 05.


"As far as Cars goes, the entire argument flop vs. non-flop is absurd. It had the highest opening weekend gross of all but two Pixar films (Nemo and Incredibles)."
After taking into account that Cars had 600 more theaters than any other Pixar film (not including Incredibles) &  ticket price increase, it's not all that impressive. The per-theater count was the worst of any Pixar film except A Bug's Life.

So many Pixar fan boys.... haha...
Who will be the first to admit that Cars isnt the best Pixar film ever made? Besides Jim?

um.. so, do we NOT want Pixar to make good films?
Does good box office make for a good film?
Am I alone in thinking that CARS was a lovely film with a poignant message that finally said a little more than OUTSIDERS CAN BAND TOGETHER INTO A FAMILY?
Do we want John Lasseter to make good films, or  more challenging films?
Would we be just as happy that Disney make SHREK clone CRAP like CHICKEN LITTLE (Yes, it was crap, and dont quote box office to me... crap, crap, crap) so we can complain about them?
Im sad.

I hate to really get into whether or not this movie is a disappointment, but I think that something that Jim mentioned (either in this article or a previous one) is worth repeating... there are a TON of animated movies that came out this year. Yes, it might be that most still consider Pixar movies to be an event, as he said, but there are still many who might think of it as just another cartoon. And if I were a parent who had to pay $30+ every other week for my whole family to see a new movie once, I might as well just wait for the DVD.

I'm going to have to have to side with the "not a flop" crowd. A $60 million opening weekend is impressive for any movie (even with length and theater count taken into account). And it's just an opening weekend. It's a decent estimate of how well the movie will do, but not perfect. I mean, Incredibles had a better opening weekend than Finding Nemo, but Finding Nemo made a decent ammount more money in the long haul (Incredibles $261 million compared to Nemo's $340 million).

I don't understand how the only way this film would have been considered a success is if it had grossed better or as well as the two highest grossing films the company has made. Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi never outgrossed Star Wars, but they sure aren't viewed as failures. At least not today.

Toy Story 2: 100%
Toy Story: 100%
Finding Nemo: 98%
Incredibles: 97%
A Bug's Life: 91%
Cars: 77%  <---

Also note, that alot of the positive reviews are along the lines of "Well, this isn't the worst Pixar film" or "Looks great on the outside, but check under the hood".  Not too positive there.

A few things I'm sure the makers of the DaVinci Code or X-3 would love to have a rating of 77% then they wouldn't have droped so heavily in they're second weekends.  For the record I liked both of those films.

 I realize Cars is geared(no pun intended) towards younger kids.  But if you look at some of the bigger blockbusters of the past few years:

Revenge of the Sith
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
the Spider-Man films
the Lord of the Rings films
the Incredibles
the Harry Potter films
All of these  clock in close to two hours or more.  Granted many of these aren't something you would take a four or five year old to.  But I've seen plenty of six and seven year olds at these films

I went to see the film today - it didn't disappoint.  I don't know why people have such unrealistic financial expectations.  I don't believe Walt Disney used to sit around and say, while the film was being made, "If this doesn't have a bigger opening than our last feature, it's a disappointment."

One criticism I do have is with the marketing.  Not everyone is a NASCAR/race fan.  There should have been different trailers for different markets:  Lightning McQueen race scenes for predominantly male audiences; some scenes with Lightning and Sally targeting females; more showings of the Lightning/Mater trailer that appealed to all audiences.  

I am inclined to go see anything that Pixar is associated with for one simple reason:  they emphasize the STORY.  Maybe someday the people at Disney will remember that's what the founder of the company believed in, too.

I won't retread (ahahaha) any of the fine ideas above, but I wanted to add something to the "cars aren't fuzzy/loveable" argument.    

The last thing I want to think about while enjoying my weekend escapism at the theater is how I just got gouged at the pump.  I loved the movie, but I felt pangs of sadness when I realized that taking a drive to nowhere in particular was going to cost me around forty bucks.  Jealously when Lightning McQueen got a daily gas ration.  

I've been hating my car and my dependency on it for a few months now, so yes, it was hard to warm up to its Pixar counterpart, no matter how cute.  I think it's a bad time for a movie that glorifys cars and America's "car culture".  Especially in foreign release.

Rather odd that we have homegrown viewers fanatically chiming in to *reassure* us that the Experts Must Have Been Right, and Cars "got what it deserved" after all:
"Whaddya mean, of COURSE it flopped!--I mean, uh...I didn't like it, kinda.  That's somebody...There, y'see?  Proves it!"

And it doesn't just happen with Disney, or Pixar, or the Disney-Pixar handover, or what-have-you:  Every time some industry fortune is "speculated" about on a hi-publicity title for weeks to months before opening, and real-world audience reaction interferes, there's almost a grass-roots reaction to Protect the Experts at All Costs...
Are we *that* hypnotized by Big Industry Headlines that we VOLUNTEER our time, effort, and plausibilty to go fifth-column and become Junior Variety Scouts, and help overpaid studio/analyst execs with their spin-headlines?  Are we that ungrounded by a "future opinion" we held in April being changed in June?  Is it so damaging to our self-esteem to find out that we're *not* Know-It-Alls because something we read in Entertainment Weekly and believed as gospel for six months turned out to be less of a well-researched total guess than we gave it credit for being?

It's nature to want to punish someone who Made Us Look Bad.  (As noted, I know one film that suffered that consequence.)  The more it puts the burden of proof back on us, the more we want to punish the helpless victim.
But the more mature individual learns to weather surprises, and to see all facts around him.

There is an old expression that all prognosticators, whether for or against something, would do well to heed.  Particularly when predicting whether a film will be a success or failure.

"Time will tell."

Also, I have to say that a few of the responses I've read here are quite vile and despicable. Opinions that are clearly representative of small minds, envious and hateful towards the success of others.

-->Also, I have to say that a few of the responses I've read here are quite vile and despicable. Opinions that are clearly representative of small minds, envious and hateful towards the success of others.<--

Vile?  Disgusting?  Dude, we're talking about a movie here.

>>Rather odd that we have homegrown viewers fanatically chiming in to *reassure* us that the Experts Must Have Been Right, and Cars "got what it deserved" after all:<<

Got what it deserved???  Rather odd that you would read that into anything posted on this board.  Care to give a quote?

"Cars" deserves a billion dollars, as do several other animated features that haven't even received 2% of that.  I don't speak for anyone else, but that's not what *I'm* on about.

The reason I find all this so amusing is that there has been this mantra in both Disney fandom and in animation circles in general that John Lasseter was the second coming, he could do no wrong, and he was going to waive his magical Pixar wand and save Disney, animation, truth, justice, and liberty overnight.  A lot of us have been quietly commenting that "it ain't gonna be that easy".  

Well, here's your first proof, so either face it or deny it, it doesn't matter.  Lasseter's a brilliant filmmaker, and probably the best guy for the job, but if brilliant films were all that was required for success, there would be no reason for Garfield II to exist.  And furthermore, Cars is good, but it isn't quite as brilliant as past Pixar efforts.  Really.  It's not.  Regardless of how much your kid likes their plushie.

This is Disney/Pixar's first wakeup call.  It's a gentle one -- slightly disappointing reviews followed by a moderate underperformance on opening weekend.  I wonder what the second one will be like, and how many additional seconds of running time will be required to explain it away.

Lasseter's good, Pixar's good, but IT AIN'T GONNA BE THAT EASY.  That's all I'm saying.  (That, and Give Peace a Chance.)

And to sum up the point, before it gets lost in a mudpile of wishful in-fighting:
Cars is not on trial for "Being disappointing", "Not serving the audience", "Not making money", or whatever we've dreamed up to make it look as if Hollywood Still Knows More Than We Do--
The article states it clearly:  Cars is on trial charged with "Not making as much money as Disney THOUGHT it would."

Note that little word that starts with a T.  It usually refers to real-world events intruding upon someone's fantasy life.   It brings "facts", quote-fingers, squarely into the realm of Opinion, and opinions, by very Webster's, can be WRONG.  Especially if you work in Hollywood.
In this case, Disney said that Cars would be "Finding Nemo"...And they wanted it to be Finding Nemo, because they thought that -all- Pixar movies released in summer would be Nemo, regardless of quality, time, events, plot, release date, momentary audience zeitgeist, and other things that *might* have contributed to Nemo being a Freak Occurrance.  (Which, as I've already posted, it might very well have been.)

...We're picking on poor ol' Chuck for saying "Wait and see".  I say bless the poor ol' chap.  He happens to be right.

"Nothing satisfies the Wall Street morons today. It is the most unrealistic bunch of people on the planet and they dictate how these companies operate"

Unfair and harsh.

Why is everyone getting annoyed at the reality just because they like the movie?
C'mon, the movie underperformed.  Disney just spent a massive fortune on Pixar and now Pixar hits a speedbump.  Of course investors will worry.  This isn't entertainment for them, it's their bank accounts.

And personally I think we all saw this coming.  The initial reaction to the trailers was terrible.  I consider myself an enormous Pixar and Disney fan, but I have absolutely no interest in this movie.  None.  All the NASCAR, all the dirt, all the Larry the Cable Guy.  Pixar went niche on this movie.  They went redneck.  And when they did that they lost out on a large portion of this country.  It wasn't a good gamble.  While it might appeal to the average NASCAR fan, seeing NASCAR signs turns a good deal of the country off.  Combine that with Larry the Cable Guy's voice and I think you have factors that will make just about any movie unenjoyable for me.  And mostly everyone I've talked with offline agrees with me.

Here's hoping the next film does better.

I just find it so odd that some of you are so quick to jump on reality here.

You love Pixar.  We all do.
You loved the movie.  Most people seem to.
But that doesn't change the fact that Disney needed a huge weekend and did not get it.
You can whine all you want about Wall Street being "retards" or America being "consumerists" but you're coming across as such yourself.

Just because you really liked something doesn't mean it wasn't a disappointment.
I mean, quite frankly, most of the movies I love are financial disappointments.  That does not make them bad movies, it just means that the money invested was not made back, or was not made back enough to warrant the enormous risk involved.

Wall Street isn't saying the movie isn't good.  They're not personally insulting you for liking the movie, although many of you are trying to personally insult them.
They're simply saying the movie did not connect with audiences as much as it should have, given how high a profile movie it was.
And there is nothing wrong with this.  You should simply accept this as a fact rather than go on these ultra-long tirades about how stupid Wall Street is.  I mean, who is it that is financing these movies?  WALL STREET!  And when a movie costs as much as Cars did and is as high profile as Cars was you expect a lot from it.  And they did not get a lot from it.  Which is huge historically as Pixar has never underperformed like this.

Stop whining about Wall Street being retarded because it was a good movie, or because it made a lot of money.  This has nothing to do with the quality of the movie and everything to do with how much money it made.  Which just wasn't enough to satisfy expectations.  People were relying upon these expectations.  
And yes, the movie made a lot of money, but the Harry Potter released the same time a few years back made 50% more.  And if the next Harry Potter only made this much, again Wall Street would knock it, because it didn't meet the precedent or the expectations.

This is simply about money, people.  Stop taking it personal about the quality of the film.  The film just didn't appeal to a wide enough audience, for whatever reason.  And it's unlikely to have the worldwide legs of other Pixar films.  And this has many people nervous, people suddenly wondering if Pixar was worth the enormous premium Disney and its stockholders paid.

Can I have everyone take on both sides take a deep breath or two, please? Let's all try to remain calm here, folks - as Hitchcock said, "It's only a movie".

Did I read the same article that the pro-Pixar people did? You'd think that from the responses, Jim had said "This movie crashed and burned! Lasseter's a failure - A FAILURE, DO YOU HEAR?!? String him up!" (Sounds more like Al Lutz describing Paul Pressler and DCA, but I digress...)

Jim mentioned what a lot of people on the Street feel. They expected this movie to be another "Nemo" and were disappointed that it wasn't and wanted to know why.
A few people who felt that Disney overpaid for Pixar now feel a little more justified, but I don't think anyone's coming toward Iger or Lasseter with pitchforks just yet.

Justifiably or not, some folks see "Cars" opening weekend as a stumble for Disney - not a bad one, necessarily, but a stumble nevertheless. If the next Pixar release does better than expected - which should be an easier goal to attain, since now the bar will be lowered a little as far as expectations - all this hand-wringing will be quickly forgotten. On the other hand, if Pixar makes an actual flop - and the law of averages says that'll happen eventually - the Company has something to worry about.  

It's not like we haven't been through this before, folks. After "Lion King", WDFA had a couple of pictures that did respectably - not spectacularly, but well enough.  Everybody freaked about the lowered performance, mainly because they compared the BO of these films to "Lion King", which is like comparing a ballplayer's performance in a typical game to the game he hit four homers including a grand slam. It's not fair, but it happens.

WDFA began a downward slide in quality and box office after "Lion King", but we don't know if "Cars" indicates the beginning of a similar trend at Pixar or this is just a hiccup. Let's wait and see how this turns out before we all freak, shall we?

 

I haven't seen the movie. To me, it wasn't about how good the movie was.

An "expert" analyst, for this film, any film, or an unrelated industry will proclaim a prediction for the future. Either a quarterly sales number, an annual profit figure, or even a weekend gross. Basically they are looking into a crystal ball, and predicting the future.

Then the actual event occurs, in this case, a film's opening weekend. We compare what actually happened to what the analyst saw in his crystal ball, and if they don't match, we punish the company that produced the item, and the company's stockholders - not the analyst who was incorrect.

This is how we end up with a huge amount of money being made, but stock going down, and people upset with analysts.  Many of the recent big business firings of thousands of middle managers and the "little people" are due to CEOs trying to appease Wall Street and the analysts. If this was a psychic making a prediction, we would shrug our shoulders and move on.

Then we get to "I hope this takes Lassetter down a peg" thoughts. Lassetter ain't perfect, but he's been able to create some very succesful, tangible, commercial products - something no analyst has done their entire career. He's got the nice problem of writing and directing a hit movie, which anybody in Hollywood would gladly take credit for. To try and retrofit this into being a failure is pretty silly.

>>Then the actual event occurs, in this case, a film's opening weekend. We compare what actually happened to what the analyst saw in his crystal ball, and if they don't match, we punish the company that produced the item, and the company's stockholders - not the analyst who was incorrect. <<

Wooly-headed nonsense.  

Stock prices are based on expectations of future earnings.  Cars' opening weekend just caused the expectations for Disney to drop a bit.  

No one is being "punished."  Where do you come up with this stuff?

I think the topic of the article is accurate. I think 'Cars' did fall below expectations, because expectations were greater than $70 Mil. Those expectations may have been high and unrealistic, but those were the expectations. The article doesn't address whether or not it was a good movie, just how it did in it's opening weekend. I think the article takes a very negative slant when it tries to counter every positive point with a negative point of it's own. Turning everything positive that could be said into something negative is not necessary.

Looking at the box office numbers for blockbuster hits, as well as other animated films, it appears that a movie's opening weekend accounts for somewhere between 13% of overall take (a movie with LONG legs) and 38% (a movie with big hype that people realized sucked). The average for an animated film appears to be about 20%. At 20%, Cars will end up making $250 Mil. domestically. In order to break $200 Mil, it's opening weekend take would have to account for about 28% of the overall take, which is on the high side of most movies, especially family oriented movies. How many movies have made more than $200 million in the last year? 9, with Da Vinci Code and Ice Age 2 less than $10 mil. away. I would call that a huge success, even if it is below 'expectations'.

I think the reason that the movie hasn't done as well as it could have is the trailers failed to market the film appropriately. This is obvious when people say that they don't want to see the film because it is too niche, too redneck, or cars don't interest them. If you've seen the movie you will realize that this movie is none of the above. It has very broad appeal. My wife enjoyed it and she's never seen a NASCAR race in her life. And every single review I've read has said that Larry the Cable Guy turns in one of the most memorable performances in the movie (along with Paul Newman). This includes everyone that says that they hate his comedy act. I'm hoping that word of mouth will spread and people will realize that this movie is very different from the trailers.

Wow, I did my math wrong. If the first weekend is 20% of the total take, 'Cars' would gross $300 million domestically. To break $200 million the first weekend would have to consist of 30% of the total gross. I think 'Cars' will easily break $200 million.

Hmmm... I guess my beef..(as usual) is with the world then. It doesnt matter how good something is. Or the quality. If Wall Street/Politics/Hollywood doenst like it. It's considered a failure.

Disney didn't purchase Pixar for instant gratitude. Or as a "fix" for every problem thats wrong with the Disney company. The name PIXAR itself (to me anyway) means quality. And In my mind that is why they purchased it. To be associated with the 'quality' computer animator. (not to mention the royalites...) So if everyone agrees that the movie was decent. And the animation was amazing. Then regardless of money, it should be a success. But wait... Its not. because some analyst sat down with his calculator and decided how much this movie needed to make so people wouldnt talk Sh*t about it. So now... even though the animation was good and the inital goal (purchase) was met. its a failure. Its just a circle.

Lets all decide on one way to judge if a movie is a success and stick with it.

Because Jim certainly didnt make it seem that Over the Hedge was anything but a success. You'll find No interviews with Bonnie Hunt or Owen Wilson. But the skunk made time? But yet... according to Jim's numbers... Over the Hedge made 38.4 mill. Where was the "FAILURE" article about that? Where is the secondary articles about all the dreamworks movies? Oh wait... this a "News, reviews, history and commentary about the entertainment industry (But mostly about the Mouse)" Funny how the critical articles are about the mouse. While the rest of the industry slides by on gold.

THAT is what I think most of the people who are a little angry on here, are mad about.

>>Lets all decide on one way to judge if a movie is a success and stick with it. <<

Ermmm . . . we already did.  "Did it make the bungload of money we expected?"  That's how Hollywood judges if a movie is a success.

Over the Hedge did not make a bungload of money.  Its disappointing showing (like that of Oscar-winner Wallace and Grommit before it) was reported by many news outlets, as was DreamWorks' subsequent stock performance.  But that wasn't much of a story--it wasn't really a surprise, nor was it all that interesting to the public at large.  So why would you expect Jim to write a "FAILURE" article about it?

Your beef IS with the world.  Sorry.  This ain't Disneyland.

Oh sorry. Forgive me for trying to not be completley sarcastic, and hateful at the world all the time. I'm not naive. I just dont like the way the world works sometimes.( blah blah, life isnt fair... i know)

Just because I dont like how things work, doesnt mean i have to be happy with them. And not voice that I think it sucks.

And that system sucks.

-->And every single review I've read has said that Larry the Cable Guy turns in one of the most memorable performances in the movie (along with Paul Newman).<--

I've never heard Larry the Cable Guy before, in an act or on tv, and after a while, I found the whole redneck Mater thing a little tiring.  Also, most reviews say that Newman phoned in his dialogue, so I don't know what review you're reading.  See, everyone has different views on this one, and that contributes to the performance, and word of mouth.

-->You'll find No interviews with Bonnie Hunt or Owen Wilson. But the skunk made time?<--

Probably because Dreamworks was shopping for all the Press they could get, while Disney was sticking with the big guys.  You print what you get, and you can't fault Jim for that.

"Lets all decide on one way to judge if a movie is a success and stick with it. "

Why do we all need to decide on one way.
Why don't you pick the way that best suits you and let others pick the way that best suits them.


All you care about is the quality of the film.  Fine.  Then why do you care if the people that invested money in the film care about how much it earns?

The economy can't work based on how good a film is.  They can't just say "well, Sony made a boatload of money on the second and third Matrix movies, but they were terrible movies.  Let's knock the stock down," or "Hey, the Weinsteins produced a great little movie that only three people saw.  Let's have their stock double!"  

Your problem is that you're entirely incapable of differentiating between kinds of success.  It's like you live in a vaccuum where only your opinion matters.  It's a bit creepy, actually, and makes me wonder how old you are.
If you judge the film based on quality, was it a success?  To you yes.  To others no.
If you judge the film based on financial intake was it a success?  To you yes, to those with actual money riding on the film no.

See how it works?  It all depends on where you're standing and what you're looking at, and this entire article is dealing with aspects you'd rather not consider.  So stop talking about them if they aren't important to you.  To people with money riding on this it's very important.  And the film clearly has not been as much of a success, as it has not struck fans the way previous Pixar movies have.  Again, your opinion isn't the only one that matters.  So why are you spending so much time in a message board trying to beat anyone over the head that doesn't agree with you?

greenyskp said: "The name PIXAR itself (to me anyway) means quality."

There was a time when the name Disney meant quality. Hopefully we'll get back to that soon.

Why weren't there articles complaining about "Over The Hedge" not having a great opening weekend? Mainly because Wall Street and the press weren't predicting that it'd make $70 million and be another "Nemo". It's not fair, but whoever said life was fair?

As far as the articles on the site: Let's be fair here, folks. Every article Jim writes about Disney isn't a hard-core bash and every non-Disney article isn't sunshine and happiness. Even if I don't always agree with where Jim is going with his articles, I enjoy reading what he writes, and I look forward to seeing a different prespective on Disney other than Disney corporate spin and the usual comments from the "Disney can do no wrong" crowd. In theory, isn't that why we all visit this site?

"I really want this movie to underperform (not bomb, just underperform) to shove it in Lasseter's face that Pixar isn't perfect. "

Quality apparently means nothing to a mind like yours, Mike.  I don't think I'll be asking you anything in the near future.  Good luck humping Disney's leg and all of your other pursuits.

"Quality apparently means nothing to a mind like yours, Mike.  I don't think I'll be asking you anything in the near future.  Good luck humping Disney's leg and all of your other pursuits."

To be fair, he doesn't hump Disney's leg ... only Eisner's. He can't WAIT for Disney to fail now so he can rush to point to everyone how wrong we were about Eisner and how badly the company still needs his leadership.

Hence the negative vibe towards Lasseter, whom most people view as the anti-Eisner and exactly what Disney needs right now.

I dont live in a vacuum. Understanding how the world works is one thing.

Wanting a Utopia is another. And while I dont want  or expect a utopia per say. I would like a world that judges based on the quality of something. Not how much money it made. Dare to dream.

If money, as an idea and a thing dissapeared tomorrow, how would we judge this movie? Take a vote? How does one judge success?

I personally dont like Wall-Street, and the market and would never invest my money in it. I am not a gambler either. Which is why i get up in arms when Wall Street decides before a movie is released, how to determine if it will be successful.

Many people in this country view success as  different things. And My view of success has nothing to do with money. Not everyone in the world agrees with YOUR opinion either. I can't fathom looking at a person. or a movie. or a products cold hard numbers. And determing whether it is a success.

Was Mother Theresa a success? Was Ghandi a success? Or would you think that Bill gates is a success? The guys from Enron? The mother that works three low-paying jobs versus the lawyer who works one high paying job? Are they both successful?

>>Was Mother Theresa a success? Was Ghandi a success?<<

Ghandi made $52.7 Million in 1982, very successful.  I don't believe there's been a movie called Mother Theresa.  

If you meant something else, please try harder to stay sort of kind of on topic.

"Ghandi made $52.7 Million in 1982, very successful.  I don't believe there's been a movie called Mother Theresa."
I believe he was talking about Ghandi & Mother Theresa.........the people.

From IMDb...

'Cars' Speeds Up

Disney's decision to postpone the release of Cars from November -- when previous Pixar movies have been released -- to June -- when schools are out -- could result in offsetting what analysts have called a disappointing weekend opening. On Monday, the film earned $6,445,000 -- far above the $3,802,000 that The Incredibles, the last Pixar release, earned on its first Monday in November, 2004. Likewise on Tuesday, Cars took in $5,820,000 versus $3,213,000 for the first Tuesday of The Incredibles. While initial reports had noted that the $60.1 million that Cars earned last weekend was well below the $70 million that analysts had expected, the film could exceed the gross for the first week of The Incredibles, Pixar's biggest hit, going into next weekend if mid-week ticket sales continue at the same clip.

"While initial reports had noted that the $60.1 million that Cars earned last weekend was well below the $70 million that analysts had expected, the film could exceed the gross for the first week of The Incredibles, Pixar's biggest hit, going into next weekend if mid-week ticket sales continue at the same clip."

Which is pretty much exactly what I said in my first post in the thread. Word of mouth on the film is very good and it's going to sustain longer than the other films did.

In the end, the box office take is going to be just fine. It's already gained back $5.25 million on The Incredibles in just two days.

In response to the imdb article
1) It is not fair to compare summer weekdays to non-summer, non-vacation weekdays. A better comparison would be to fellow summer movie, Finding Nemo. Nemo beet Cars by $500,000 on Monday and $1.5 million on tuesday. Adding to that, Cars only beat Monsters Inc by $1.6m. And any major advantage Cars has over Incredibles from Monday-Wednesday will be reversed on Thursday. In the monday-thursday period, Cars should amass $22.1m. In that same period, The Incredibles made $22.5m. So where is this "exceeded gross" gonna come from? That article fails to mention so much information.

2) The Incedibles was not Pixar's biggest hit.

Mike, I just have to say that you've gone SO FAR OUT OF YOUR WAY to explain away Cars' success that your last post is virtually incoherent. On one hand you talk about how badly Nemo "beat Cars by $500,000 ... " and then in the next breath you say that Cars "only" beat Monsters by $1.6 mil ... YIKES! Get a life, dude. Eisner's gone ...

Anyhoo ...

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Animated autos retained the pole position as "Cars" came in No. 1 at the box office for a second weekend with $31.2 million, holding off the wrestling comedy "Nacho Libre" and another car tale, "The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift."

"Cars," from Disney and Pixar, beat a rush of new movies, lifting its 10-day domestic total to $114.5 million, according to studio estimates Sunday.

Jim:

I'm curious:  Is it possible you applied to Disney for a job once and they refused to hire you?  Or perhaps you're an ex-cast member who has an ax to grind.  I've been looking at the this site off and on for some time, and you might as well re-title your site to "ihatedisney.com".  I particularly love the ranting you did after Disneyland kicked you cause you were trying to make a buck giving your own personal tours of the place; that was pretty damn funny.

Back to the point:  Movie grosses are always a bit of gambling....for the "analyzing" people in the industry do, it all depnds on what happens when it gets out to the public.  As movies have done for the last several years, they are specifically marketed not for longevity, but to hit big their first weekend; as time goes on, the industry sees slightly larger drops (even in the biggest hits)

From what I understand, Cars has now grossed $104,000,000 in 10 days.  Not the best in movie history, but it certainly puts in the league of simply being an unqualified, no asterisks, no explanation needed, bonafide hit film.  How about you save your nasty comments for a time when *you* produce a move that grosses over 100 Mil in 10 days?  Guess now that Eisner is gone and Iger shows signs of breathing some great life into Disney, you just can't stand it.

sorry....$114 Mil in 10 days, not 104.  heh heh heh.

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