Jim had this article pre-written over two years ago and just dropped the figures in yesterday!

Jim hates Disney!

Jim wrote "Over the Hedge" puff pieces!

All of Jim's sources talk how he writes!

Jim is out to get John Lassester!

Jim is just plain mean!

Great!  Now that we got that bullshit out of the way, how about we try having a real discussion for once!

I think hat instead of coming up with excuses about how Cars is a failure, they should be talking it up as it is technically a success.  Cars is a fantastic film and the only movie that will over take it in the next couple of weeks is Superman.  Then again, the mouse might have placed Cars in the spot to cause it to fail as, yes, this is a tough time to have a movie out with the "Next Big Thing" coming out week after week.  Then again, "Finding Nemo" was released in the summer and it was a smash hit. They are quite frankly crying over spilt milk I think.

You can be pretty sure none of the execs are sweating that much - it's all a game so they can hold the upper hand on the next round of negotiations. The execs are still in their plush offices, enjoying their expense accounts, and the movies will always be successes when their bonuses are figured. As Art Buchwald showed with Paramount, studio expenses and profits from an individual movie are very difficult to nail down. Unlike Pixar, Speilberg has made plenty of clinkers, but there isn't a studio in town that doesn't want to work with him - well, at least now that Eisner's gone.  
Hmmm Eisner thinks toy cars will sell - genius !
Bottom line - let's say Cars cost $300 million to produce and market - it's still gonna be profitable for the studio. I'd be much more concerned about purchasing Fox Family, the Muppets, Michael Ovitz, the California Angels, starting go.com, most  budgets of live action Disney/Touchstone/Hollywood/Miramax et al films, than I would about the purchase of Pixar.                    

"How about you folks? At what box office figure do you think this new John Lasseter film is finally going to run out of gas?"
---
If we're going by history, you don't make bets on "what figure" a Pixar film will run out of gas...You bet on what MONTH a Pixar film will run out of gas.
(This one's only got August on it--Not a September performer like Nemo, or a six-monther like Toy Story 2...)  :)

And if that bit of sarcastically overstated truth flew over our heads, let's put it this way:
I know one summer '06 animated film that DIDN'T come out of nowhere to clobber studio competition on its second week and grab the weekend away from an easy-demographic'ed cult-fanboy entry and an easier-demo'ed action-franchise title...Hedging our bets, are we?  ^_^

(And I repeat what I asked, three "Cars" articles before:
Are we *so* deeply and personally to Protecting the Holy Writs of 'Cars was a flop', that we're reduced to mythologizing out of our imaginations even when it ISN'T a flop?  Why does it mean so much to us that we put our lives and sacred honor at stake at Defending a Dream?
Can't the naysayers just take their Dewey-Defeats-Truman lumps like good mature adults, and sit back and watch the ever-changing cockeyed caravan of an Unpredictable World?)

Oh, and:
---
"If it weren't for $12.9 million that "Cars" pulled in on Saturday (Besting "Nacho Libre" 's $9.2 million Saturday take by $3.7 million) as well as the $11.6 million worth of tickets that this Pixar film sold on Sunday (Outdoing the $8.2 million that this Nickelodeon Movies production earned) … Pixar's $120 million ode to the open road would have found itself in the embarrassing position of being out-grossed by a $35 million live action comedy about Mexican wrestling."
---
Yes, have to admit, from a long-range planning standpoint that would have been a major embarrassment for the studio if that had happened....GOSH, TOO BAD IT *DIDN'T*, HUH??  

("If"?...That's your article, Jim, things would have been bad "if" they had happened??
Yeah, and if the South had won the Civil War, we'd all be eating chitlins, what's your freakin' POINT??)   0_o?

NubtheSquirrel said:
"I think hat instead of coming up with excuses about how Cars is a failure, they should be talking it up as it is technically a success.  Cars is a fantastic film and the only movie that will over take it in the next couple of weeks is Superman. "
---
And even then, it's only execs who share the fear of "Gosh, maybe we *won't* be #1 again the week Superman/Pirates opens!", and who believe Cars will drop off the face of the earth once the "bigger" summer movie opens (and no, we're not talking Adam Sandler, already)--
While most moviegoers, with or without less options to choose from, more easily believe in the concept of "coexistence" in filling up the cineplex, store a few acorns away for July/August, and welcome having LOTS of films to go see.  As in, "more than one"...At least in summer, anyway.  [<--Obligatory "Treasure Planet" guilt-trip.]

To wit:  A few years ago there was a lot of fear that an earlier Pixar film would be crushed by the long-awaited Harry Potter film--the FIRST one, no less--being released the second week after, and with a good few #1's to come.
Did our maverick pre-Nemo studio crumble?  Or did they take their "rival" in stride and knowingly embrace the audience "Coexistence"/"Embarrassment of riches" concept into account when they faced that calamitous second weekend?
Put it this way:  "Movie title...Two words...First word, uh--'Fur','Hair'...Sounds like 'hair'!..."

Bottom line, "Cars", was #1.  And now Disney has the highest # of blockbusters that any single studio has ever produced.  And, merchandise is selling like hotcakes.  "Cars" just opened in some international markets this weekend, and some countries won't get to see it until September.  So, technically, people shouldn't write it off just yet.  Since gas prices are high, many people may opt not to go to the theater and just buy it on DVD instead.  The DVDs will rent/sell well, more than likely.  I don't want to join the Let's Pick On Jim bandwagon, but I thought you'd be happy when Eisner left.  Now that he's gone, you just complain more than you used to.  :-(  Did you just purchase a lot of Dreamworks stock that you feel you can't love Disney anymore?  Did you see "Cars"?  It was so entertaining; I saw it twice already, and I don't like racing.  I say, good job, Disney and Pixar!

I hate to double-post, but the title of this article mentions "Cars"' dwindling box office"...don't a lot of movies' box office numbers go down after the first week?  "Cars" is no different.  It's almost like you want us to think that it has some magic power that's going to make it the most profitable movie ever, and that it's failing at its super powers.

Once again Jim compares apples to oranges to further his Fantasyland vision of reality ...

Cars's OPENING weekend (which is what this was for Nacho Libre) was almost double what that piece of crap did. This was Cars' SECOND weekend in the theaters, not it's first. Ergo, the fact that it ultimately beat out the competition and took the weekend again is even MORE impressive, considering it was going up against the OPENING weekends of all the other major films whose asses it kicked.

Also to dismiss Nacho Libre as "a live action movie about Mexican wrestling ... " is patentely ridiculous. Jack Black movies have a large cult following and they always do fairly well at the box office.

This constant bashing for bashing's sake is actually getting fairly tiresome. I challenge anyone to go to any other site and find an article that hammers Cars' peformance the way Jim has been. He's obviously grinding his personal axe at the expense of the fact that we have to continue to read this crap.

Well ... no I guess we don't, do we?

Despite what any "numbers" are saying, I think this movie is much better than The Incredibles.  I have not bought the DVD of that movie (the only Pixar film i don't have) and don't see myself ever buying it, but i will be buying the Cars DVD the day it comes out.

Granted it is practically just To Wong Foo with cars rather than drag queens, but i loved this movie and i was expecting that i wouldn't.

Jim Jim Jim
Your bias is questionable.
Yes, we know the numbers. We don't care. The studios don't really care. So, what's the big deal?
Numbers aside, what did you think of the movie? How about posting a review of the movie. Be a Disney fan again!

"How about posting a review of the movie?"

Or how about posting a story someone besides you is interested in? And before someone says it, yes I know these stories are drawing lots of comments, but that's us bickering back and forth with each other. It's not based on any genuine, productive interest in Jim's stories.

Here's an idea, Jim. Put your axe away and write a story that's actually interesting? Why don't you go find out more details on the Year of A Million Dreams?? I have about a hundred questions I'd like answered on this and, outside of that one lame story you posted day one that had no info I couldn't have gotten from my local newspaper, you haven't said another thing about it.

THAT'S a story I'd actually find interesting, because thus far details on this have been scarce.

I admit that when the box office numbers came out for Friday, I was a little worried. "Cars" dropping to number 3, up against a lame Black vehicle and a rerun of extreme racing? But then "Cars" came roaring back on Saturday and Sunday and won the race. And that IMO is damned impressive. "Cars" isn't my favorite Pixar film by far - "Monsters Inc." is probably my fave. But I'm sure glad it's doing well and I think that it's particularly significant that its merchandising is selling so well. That IMO is a sure sign of a movie or TV show's popularity - that people like the characters so much they're willing to part with a buck to wear them on T-shirts or sleep with them (I'm talking plush toys here, relax). For example, despite the fact it's supposedly the second-most-popular show on Nickelodeon, "The Fairly Oddparents" doesn't make Nick a dime in merchandising - supposedly because, according to someone I know who works on ad placement for Nick, the fairy godfather character is so obnoxious parents don't feel good about buying products with him on it. OTOH, "Spongebob Squarepants" is a merchandising bonanza, on everything from shower curtains to car deoderizers. If the public really likes a character, it'll buy it, literally - and so if "Cars" is merchandising well, it's a sure sign the film is a substantial hit.

Here's the deal on Cars...

Why did Cars not out perform Nemo?  1.  Late release.  Yes, this movie should have been released either May 12th (against M:I:III and Poseidon) or June 2nd (against the break up which would have moved to the 9th).  Why For? GRADUATIONS and GRADUATION PARTIES.  Most High School and College all start the first June weekend and continue well into the third weekend.  The second June weekend was the sweet spot.  

2. DVDs vs. Ticket Prices.  It's only been three years since Nemo, but the DVD market has changed dramatically.  Between faster release times, mail dvd rental services, and the High cost of going to the movies, most people and families would rather see a movie once and/or wait for the DVD release.

3. Crowded market place.  2006 is so jam packed with new releases, more than I remember in recent memory.  Name one movie, beside X2, that release the same time as Nemo in 2003?  There have been two animated moves with in weeks of each other this year alone.

Cars will do fine.  The toys are selling like Gangbusters.  I can only find the Lightning and Mater die cast cars... when I do find them.  I'm still waiting for Amazon.com to sell Red with Stanley.  The DVD will go crazy at Christmas time.  Unless Monster House, Open Season, or Barnyard are spectacular (which I doubt) you are looking at your Acadmey Award winner.

Was the Pixar purchase worth it to Disney?  Oh yeah.

What could be a problem is the next movie, Ratatouille.  I don't know how many people said, "That looks stupid" in the theatre.  I have absolute faith in Brad Bird.  I think the trailer is great.  The animation... unbelievable.  Having a later summer release date might be beneficial to the movie.

I forgot Ant Bully and Flushed Away.  The only real competition for the oscar could come from Flushed Away, but I have faith Cars will win.

As for Pete Doctor's new movie about "Monsters," if you watch Cinderella's special features, there is a documentary on Mary Blair.  Many animators talk about Mary Blair, including Pete Doctor.  There he revealed he is working on his next feature.  He also talked about posting lots of Mary Blair art around the studio to inspire the artists for his feature.  Take that for what it's worth.

Also, as a side note, there is a podcast mentioned that Andrew Stanton is working on a new feature.  That's all they said.

On the Simpson's 7th season DVD, the commentary mentioned that someone who was a show runner is working on a 2008/9 Pixar release.  That's all he was allowed to say.

"2. DVDs vs. Ticket Prices."
I don't buy that argument at all. If that's true, why did Narnia make almost $300m? Why did Harry Potter & Kong both make a hell of a lot of money? Prices are not an issue.

"3. Crowded market place.  2006 is so jam packed with new releases, more than I remember in recent memory.  Name one movie, beside X2, that release the same time as Nemo in 2003? "
-Bruce Almighty (premiered the week before....made $242m)
-Matrix Reloaded (premiered 2 weeks before....made $281m)
-2Fast 2Furious (premiered 1 week after....opened with $50m)
-Hulk (premiered 3 weeks after....opened with $62m)
And besides these mega hits, that timeframe was also filled with family films like Rugats gone Wild, Lizzie MacGuire Movie & Holes.


Cars second weekend simply isn't up to par with Pixar's last 3 releases.
Monsters Inc: 27.2% drop to $45m ($122m total to date)
Nemo: 33.7% drop to $47m ($144m total to date)
Incredibles: 28.7% drop to $50m. ($143m total to date)
Cars: 44% drop to $31m ($114m total)

That drop is huge. And truth is, it only has one more week alone. Once Superman & PotC comes out, Cars will run out of gas. And to add to that, Cars has 600 more theaters than Nemo or Monsters Inc had.

Well anyway, Disney is a great company. And "Cars" is NOT a failure, seriously, come on, from DVD sales, all the things their selling, "Cars" will not be a failure. But on another note, I think a Monsters Inc 2 would be perfect! I always wanted to know if boo and the little girl would meet again. But yea, and "Cars" is I repeat, not a failure. Superman returns should gobble up alot of "boys" attention, but not the girls', the girls will still wanna see Cars. And as for me, Personally, I think Warner Brothers has another "Poseidon" on their hands. Maybe it will do a little better, but personally, I dont find the previews or anything at all attractive. What Disney has to worry about, is next years "Big Sequels", hello! Shrek 3!!!! Theres no way Disney can beat that, even Pixar, unless it was going up against a film with a big fanbase, like "Toy Story 3" or something. Or heres another one which would be virtually impossible to surpass, "Spiderman 3" if I were head of big movie studios, I'd give this film like a month to wind down, before releasing my film. Cuz, U kno that the spider will once again kick some butt... But as for Disney/Pixar, their fine, Ratatouille looks amazing and very pleasable, so I will probably wana watch that. And then, "Toy Story 3" which IS in full production, I promise. John Lasseter even hinted it. And then a "Monsters Inc 2" would be a HUGE smash! Seriously, it would do awesome! Well, as for Disney/Pixar, their good, And Disney is going to shoot down Superman Returns with Pirates 2, seriuosly I'm gonna watch Pirates rather than some guy in tights, it has action, comedy, good characters, a good plot, the perfect combination for a summer blockbuster.

"2. DVDs vs. Ticket Prices."
I don't buy that argument at all. If that's true, why did Narnia make almost $300m? Why did Harry Potter & Kong both make a hell of a lot of money? Prices are not an issue."

On this point, I agree with askmike.

If anything, increased ticket prices would make it EASIER for Cars to perform better since the per person contribution to the gross is higher.

The number of people turned away by a dollar increase in ticket prices is not likely to be great enough to offset the added revenue that provides.

I am just stunned that we are talking about a box office disappointment for a movie that crossed the $100 million mark in its 9th day.  Working in corporate America, I am more than aware of the ways Wall Street has ruined the working world for millions.  It is sad that it is redefining success in the movie business this way and leading to the trashing of a hit movie that doesn't deserve this.  This movie made over $114 million in 10 days.  Add what DVD sales will be, this is a huge win for Disney.  I am sure Disney would rather have "Cars" than "Over the Hedge" right now.

"The number of people turned away by a dollar increase in ticket prices is not likely to be great enough to offset the added revenue that provides."

I have to say that I believe this only because of the numbers AskMike provided. I can't believe I'm the only one, though, that only sees movies in the theater once anymore, particularly among the young parents with young children demographic. Still building our careers, money's tight, debts accumulated faster than they probably should have. And ticket prices are really out of hand. Seeing a movie has to be a REALLY big occasion.

I saw "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" four times the first day, seven total. Boy, those were the days. I will see "Cars" once (did that, loved it), "Pirates" once, and "Superman Returns" once. That will be it for movies this summer, maybe this year. That's really depressing for someone as obsessed with movies as I am. It's just too expensive.

I have to agree with others, Jim.  I wonder if you were predisposed to minimize the impact of Cars, maybe to support your well-justified questions about the "price" of a continuing relationship with Pixar (which you questioned long before acquisition was even a possibility).  

For the most part, I believe good G-rated films make their money back.  To have taken in more than $100 million in the first 10 days is stunning, and would have any other studio's employees dancing in the streets.

Moreover, I am not content to compare the film with The Incredibles or other Pixar films.  I believe we also have to compare it to Chicken Little, the CGI film that Disney was hoping would do so well that it could show the world that it did not need Pixar (as a partner or as a wholly-owned subsidiary).  I'll give you credit for comparing Cars to other summer blockbusters, other animated films, other opening weekends, etc., but I think the comparion with Chicken Little will almost single-handedly show why Disney needed to maintain some type of relationship with Pixar.

Despite the growing pains from the acquistion, I am convinced that Disney will be a stronger company for having acquired Pixar - just like Chrysler was after having paid "way too much" for American Motors just to acquire the Jeep brand.

Can we just get of the subject of Cars for one minute and talk about how well CGI animated movies are doing lately,I mean look at what Dreamworks Over the Hedge .Cars in just 2 weeks has made $117,055,283 while Over the Hedge has in 4 weeks made a poor $139,047,483.Both have under performed for there respective studios,and this tells me that people are starting to tire of CGI movies.This is what we should be disscusing here JIM!

Personally I think Lassaster is overated anyway and his movies have always failed in comparason to others by Brad Bird,Pete Docter and Andrew Stanton in my opinion.It'll be really interesting to see how well Ratatouille does for itself and Pete Doctor's next movie which may or may not be Monsters Inc.

"Bottom line - let's say Cars cost $300 million to produce and market - it's still gonna be profitable for the studio. I'd be much more concerned about purchasing Fox Family, the Muppets, Michael Ovitz, the California Angels, starting go.com, most  budgets of live action Disney/Touchstone/Hollywood/Miramax et al films, than I would about the purchase of Pixar."

Ha ha ha ... yeah very good point!! Although I think they put the total costs for Cars closer to $130 mil, not $300 mil.

But yeah ... I don't see any of these Pixar naysayers trotting out the financials on how much THOSE combined losses were for Disney?? What a string of disasters ...

And who orchestrated said disasters you ask? Why none other than Mr. Michael Eisner!

Gee what a shame he's gone and now all they have to complain about is a movie that made $120 mil in 10 days.

Even if this under-performance is a problem, which I highly doubt, I don't think making anymore sequels is going to fix it.

Pixar already proved that they CAN make sequels, but by making Toy Story III and Minsters Inc. II, they'll be falling into the same trap that Disney fell into during the 1990's. As they say: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As for Cars, there's nothing seriously wrong with the numbers they're getting now. If they get at least $200 million by the end of the summer, which is quite likely, all this discussion on how it was "disappointing" will be a complete waste. And please try to remember: even though The Incredibles made slightly more than Finding Nemo on its premiere weekend, it actually made about $70 million less than Nemo overall.

What we really should be focusing on is how well Ratoulette is going to do next summer.

It is true though that the film has a lot of competition. But whose fault is it for putting it out in the summer with all the other hits and then assuming that it was going to smash the box office?

But whose fault is it for putting it out in the summer with all the other hits and then assuming that it was going to smash the box office?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I belive it was Pixar's fault,as Disney wanted to release the movie in Chicken Little's release spot.But Pixar decided to wait as it wanted that Summer release!  

Once again, you prove you're nothing but an unprofessional hack who knows squat about how showbiz really works.

Seriously Jim, fess up....what did Disney do to hurt you so along ago that makes you hate it so much? Didn't get your picture with Tigger at Disneyland when you were a toddler and it set the tone for your entire life?

sheesh

"Pixar already proved that they CAN make sequels"
They proved nothing. They made one sequel. For all we know, it could have just been luck (with the help of a loved 1st movie).



"If they get at least $200 million by the end of the summer, which is quite likely, all this discussion on how it was "disappointing" will be a complete waste."
1) Right now, that's a big IF. This is how I see Car's performance to turn out (+/-10m)
# Weekend Gross/drop Total to date (weekdays gross)
1 60/0 60
2 33/-44 117 (23)
3 18.5/-44 151.5 (16)
4 9/-52 169.5 (9)
5 3.6/-60 177.1 (4)
6 2.6/-28 183.7 (4)
7 1.6/-28 188.3 (3)
8 1.0/-37 191.3 (2)
9 1.0/-0 194.3 (2)
10+ 1.0 198.3 (3)

Of course, it really depends on how Pirates & Superman affects it and how well the weekday grosses are. Just my guess though. But even if it does hit $200m, if it doesn't get close to $250, it will be labeled as a disappointment.


"What we really should be focusing on is how well Ratoulette is going to do next summer."
No, we should be focusing on how Cars is doing now. Ratatouille is too far away to worry about right now.

Disney paid too much for Pixar.     My house is full of things I paid too much for. Last weekend, I purchased "Cotton's Talking Parrot." Made for the Pirate's movie, it maybe cost $1 to make in Hong Kong where it was shipped from. I paid $20 because it made me laugh in the store. Clearly a bad purchase. As were all of Roger's cars he shared with us, and the extra expense he went to to acquire them.

Pixar cost $7.5 billion.   Disney didn't roll up to the door with a wheelbarrow full of cash, they did a stock transaction "on paper."

Now, the best I could find was a Forbes article from 2003. Mickey Mouse licensing pulled in $4.7 billion that year, and Winnie the Pooh pulled in $5 billion. I think Jim has said the Disney princesses pull in $2 billion a year.

So, let's assume that all the Pixar characters put together pull in $1 billion a year. I think that's low, but hang in there. In eight years, your purchase price is paid off and everything else is gravy. This is assuming that a meteor hits the Pixar campus and no new movies are released, Jobs never makes a suggestion that will help the Disney Company, Lassetter never creates something for the parks that increases attendance, and all the lesser known Pixar employees never add any benefit to the Disney Company.           Something tells me Pixar characters pull in more than $1 billion annually, and that more Pixar movies will be released, speeding up the time period till "gravy hour."

Would Disney have preferred to pay less? Of course. I would have preferred to pay $3 for my talking parrot, and Roger would have preferred not having to buy a car on Ebay. Unlike the Muppet purchase that Disney got little or no benefit of having Jim Henson "in the building," Pixar was purchased quickly with minimum fuss, so Disney will receive greater benefits of having Jobs, Lassetter, and all the Pixar crew onboard and contributing.

Just think how much fun things would be if George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, or Jeff Katzenberg thought they'd like to own Pixar - and every last thing Disney wanted to do with the characters had to go through them. This is a good purchase for Disney and a good purchase for Pixar. Money will be made by all. Will it be enough money ? No    but it never is.

Well said, curmudgeon. I agree 100%.

This is by far the best aquisition Disney has made in recent memory. Virtually every single other aquisition they did lost them a pile of cash. This one will not.

I don't get the negativity here.  The box office for 'Cars' IS a disappointment.  Period.  First week it came in under other recent Pixar films and significantly under box office projections.  

A week ago many were holding out hope that the 2nd week dropoff wouldn't be as steep as the 40+ percent normally exhibited by blockbusters.  Well that didn't happen either.  

In Hollywood, expectations rule.  Are Jim's articles on 'Cars' negative in tone?  Sure.  What choice does he have under the circumstances?  Search the archives and look for Jim's commentary about 'Chicken Little' after it saw a second week drop-off of only 20% !!!!

Yes, 'Cars' will make a lot of money.  Yes, it is a good film.  But like it or not, fewer people chose to come out and see it than 'The Incredibles' less than 2 years ago.

FREEBIRD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT
DROPPED
FORTY-FOUR
PERCENT!

Good heavens, you buncha mouse-eared pin-trading socially-outcast armchair cheerleaders, what has to happen before you admit that Cars has fallen way short of all expectations?

I can come up with dozens of possible reasons why it didn't do so good--not sure which ones are right, though I think Malin's probably on to something--but this argument that the movie was an unqualified success is starting to sound like the argument that Sadaam Hussein had WMDs and was behind 9/11.  "CARS" ALMOST LOST TO "NACHO LIBRE" IN ITS SECOND WEEK OF RELEASE, AND DROPPED 44%!  That's bad for ANY movie, and DREADFUL for Pixar.  Wake up and smell the hummus!

Don't worry it'll do better in its second week . . . ok then, third week maybe? . . . ermmm, ok, how about on DVD?  Y'all are silly.

John Lasseter has directly stated that there will be no sequels to any more Pixar films.  I feel this includes MONSTERS, INC in that blanket statement.  The only sequeled Pixar was TOY STORY.  

Lasseter has also re-instated hand drawn animation as a viable medium at Disney, overturning Eisner's "Computer Generated Artwork" only.  It's all about the story and the medium in which the story will be best presented.  

I'm gonna sit on the side and watch.

Only time will tell.

Still...

Ya can't top pigs with pigs.

Despite the "disappointing numbers" from Cars, I would like anyone to give the series of events where Disney is better off for not having purchased Pixar.  This would now be the last film Disney has with Pixar.  Which means the future for Disney animation would be "Meet the Robinsons" and a non-Pixar created "Toy Story III" with toys making a trip to Hong Kong.  Say what you want about Chicken Little, compared to Cars, there is no comparison.  What should Disney have done instead?  What decisions should Disney have made that would have all saying how smart they were for not having shelled out the $7.4 billion for Pixar?  I for one can't think of any.  When you take that into consideration, who cares what "expectations" were for this movie.  As I see it, those who make the expectations are constantly setting up companies and people for a fall and they set up Pixar in a no win situation.  If it hadn't of been Cars, it would have been Ratatouille not bringing $85 million in its first weekend.  There was no way to keep that string going forever.  So please, tell me what Disney should have done and avoided having $114 million worth of mistake in the bank and a future with Pixar.  I would love to know.

John didn't say that they wouldn't make sequels, he said that if sequels were made, they would be made by the original story team, and only if there was a compelling story to tell.

I myself was a little disappointed that Cars dropped 44%, but only because I was hoping that Cars would be special. Instead it's normal, as just about every summer movie experiences that sort of drop.

I think the biggest test on the Pixar acquisition will be when Meet the Robinsons comes out.  Chicken Little was modestly successful. It made $120+ million domestically, which isn't that bad. How will Meet the Robinsons do? Will it do better or worse than Chicken Little? What will the general reactions to it be? I can't wait to find out.

Titanic hadn't broken a single box office record in its second weekend, I don't know why we're writing of Cars after it's been out for two weeks.  Not that I'm saying it'll do Titanic business, but the fact that it remained #1 in spite of two large, highly-hyped openings and pulled in over $30 million tells me there's still interest in seeing this.

Cars has failed to meet very high expectations for the box office, but that is not the same as the film not being a success. I think, that on its own merits, the film is a success and will be an important part of Disney's long term stable, at or near the same level of the other Pixar films or Disney's 90's traditional animation.

Unlike such films as "Chicken Little", "Home on the Range" or any of the other entirely forgettable films released by Disney, Cars features a story that will age very well and characters that one will want to spend time with again and again.  This is the sort of film that Disney should be making, even if it doesn't set box office records.

What we should fear from Pixar is not that they make a film that does as well as Cars (it was inevitable that they would make a film that wouldn't match the extremely high level of box office success of previous work), but that they stop making very good, even excellent films. Their commitment to quality work will continue to be successful, if it doesn't always meet high expectations.

AskMike1 says:
"2. DVDs vs. Ticket Prices."
I don't buy that argument at all. If that's true, why did Narnia make almost $300m? Why did Harry Potter & Kong both make a hell of a lot of money? Prices are not an issue.

Ummm. Narnia and Harry Potter were books. Both (hp more than Narnia) had a HUGE fan base even before the books were talked about being made into movies. Obviously a movie with a fanbase is going to have better numbers.


This argument is stupid. To anyone with common sense Cars did (and will do) fine. You can use anything as a reason as to why people didnt go out. But it differs case by case.

I personally dont go to the movies, unless its something I already know i want to see. Disney movies, anything with Pirates, LOTR, Harry Potter and Star Wars, and anything thats being payed for by someone else. I also dont EVER go miniature golfing. Its all just waaaay too expensive. And i dont enjoy sitting in a theatre with hundreds of strangers hearing them laugh at nothing. or boo at something. Or hear children crying. Or be tempted to pay 3 bucks for candy I can get at my dollar store. Or pay 5 bucks for popcorn that isnt worth 50 cents. Or 5 bucks for a large soda.

Especially when I can get it from Netflix (for free basically) and sit around scantily clad, eating marshmellow popcorn, eating my hearts content in Raisenets, JuJu Bees and Cookie Dough bites, laughing on my own, and pausing it to use the bathroom, take a nap or talk on the phone. All for under 10 bucks.

Just get over it allready. Jim is hellbent on getting us all riled up. Like some troll on a message board, I think he writes these articles for the responses we give.

"Titanic hadn't broken a single box office record in its second weekend, I don't know why we're writing of Cars after it's been out for two weeks."
The difference is that Titanic didn't drop 44% in its second week. In Fact... titanic rose 24%. With Titanic, all the planets were aligned. Somehow, everything went right for that film.  It spend 9 weekends making over $25m. It spent 15 weekends at #1 and 26 weekends in the top 10. It averaged 10% drops each week (some weeks even rising). Any comparison between Cars & Titanic is impossible.



"Unlike such films as "Chicken Little", "Home on the Range" or any of the other entirely forgettable films released by Disney, Cars features a story that will age very well and characters that one will want to spend time with again and again.  This is the sort of film that Disney should be making, even if it doesn't set box office records. "
How can you possibly say that? Do you have a crystal ball? Can you see into the future. We won't know whether or not movies like Cars & Chicken Little will be memorable for another decade.




"Cars has failed to meet very high expectations for the box office."
The critics didn't create the expectations, Pixar did. With the expection of A Bug's Life, every one of their movies opened above the previous and made over $245m. Unless something amazing happens, Cars won't do that. Every Pixar movie before Cars had a rottentomato rating above 90% (the Toy Story movies both had 100%, and Nemo & Incredibles had over 97%). Cars recieved a 75%. Was Chicken Little a success? Yes. Not only did it double it's production budget, but despite a 35% critical rating, it managed to make $135m domestically. Will Cars be able to double its production budget? Yes. However, given Pixar's track record, the numbers are a big disappointment.

I would like to know Jim's, and others, standards for defining CARS as a "failure".

If the standard for success is doing better than previously, then yes, CARS is a failure because it is not the highest grossing film to come out of Pixar.

But is Disneyland a failure because DCA stinks?

Someone should tell the Pittsburgh Steelers that their 2005 season was a failure because they won 4 games less than in 2004.

I always was under the impression that success meant 'doing well'. As long as CARS makes its money back plus , then it is a success. If the merchandising makes money it is even more of a success. If the public likes CARS and the movie makes money... how can you possibly call it a failure?

Hey Jim, what about that Incredibles sequel that you briefly brought up at the end of that one Why For? ( http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2006/02/09/751.aspx )

"Obviously a movie with a fanbase is going to have better numbers. "
Then how can you explain the success of Bruce Almighty, Elf, Passion of the Christ, Pirates of the Carribbean, Wedding Crashers, Big Fat Greek Wedding, Signs, Madagascar? And these are just a few examples.



"I would like to know Jim's, and others, standards for defining CARS as a "failure". "
I (along with many others) have said this before, Cars is not a failure, it is a disappointment. Pixar has set up a standard for themselves with critics & at the box office & Cars is a disappointment in both sectors.

Here's my first post as a member.  I'm been reading this site for a long time but finally would like to chime in and since I've been bottling it up this is going to be a long one.

I think Cars "underperfonmance" still comes down to the fact that a CGI film isn't as rare as it used to be.  You used to see just two to three of these films released a year so it was a must see event for most families.  However, over the last year the market has become flooded and I think this is shown by how many CGI films have been released this year and how only two other than Cars have passed the 100 million mark (Ice Age II and Over the Hedge - which is also way under expectations).  I think it'll be really interesting to see how the other 3 CGI releases (Monster House, Ant Bully, and Open Season) do over the next two to three months.

This statement by Jim made me laugh.  "Then it took the family audience an awful long time to decide which film was actually going to be its favorite this past weekend. For - on Friday - both "Nacho Libre" & "The Fast & the Furious: Tokyo Drift" actually did better at the box office than "Cars" did. With Jack Black's new comedy earning $10.8 million that day, while Pixar's latest release (Which earned $9.2 million on that same date) was edged out by "Tokyo Drift" (Which sold $9.7 million of tickets on Friday). " Come on Jim.  Friday night is not usually the time that a lot of families go to the movies.  Couples and teens make up the majority of this crowd.  This along with the fact that those who really wanted to see Nacho and F&F went opening day made up the reason why both of these movies won Cars on Friday.  The Saturday and Sunday matinees are usually when the families show up and this showed in the weekend numbers.  With four major releases for the weekend two of which were directed at kids and teens (Garfield and Nacho) Cars held its own fairly well.

In the end, Cars will make Disney a lot of money.  It will make back its cost on the U.S. box office alone which will without a doubt make somewhere between 200-225 million.  It will do good numbers overseas (also at least 200 million) and will sell much merchandise and dvd's.  So really Cars will make 100's of millions in profit when all is said and done.

As for people not buying the idea of DVD Prices vs. Ticket Prices I disagree their has to be some impact there.  A DVD on release date costs anywhere between $15-20 dollars unless you're shopping at the mall.  To go to a movie a family of four is going to spend at least $25 dollars.  This will effect box office numbers because most families will see the movie only once in theatres and buy the dvd because it will be cheaper than repeat viewings at the theatre.

As for Disney buying Pixar, anybody that knows business and numbers should be able to see that this is the best thing Disney has done in a long time.  As has been stated Disney will definitely make this 7.4 billion back and could easily do so within the next decade.  The reason that Pixar will stay popular and bankable is because of the one thing that the Disney company has seemed to forgotten as of late and that is that quality pays off.  Pixar is quality.  Look at the Oscars(for their shorts and full length features), and look at the films. They produce the most stunning animation possible and mix that with great stories and loveable characters.  Their concern is not where they can cut corners and budget but their focus is in telling a wonderful tale in a beautifully created world.  Hopefully, the Disney Corporation will realize that this was Walt's philosophy and what made him so successful.  Quality brings people back again and again.  Walt wasn't worried about the budget -- look specifically at Snow White and Disneyland as he had everything he had into these two projects but they paid off. When everyone else thought he was crazy he knew that these two things quality and story bring people back again and again and produce memories and classics.  I hope Pixar and Lassiter can bring this back to Disney and the parks.

I'd better save the rest for another post :)

""Obviously a movie with a fanbase is going to have better numbers. "
Then how can you explain the success of Bruce Almighty, Elf, Passion of the Christ, Pirates of the Carribbean, Wedding Crashers, Big Fat Greek Wedding, Signs, Madagascar? And these are just a few examples. "

Bruce Almighty = Jim Carrey
Elf = Will Farrel + Christmas time + a half way decent christmas movie
Passion of the Christ = Do I have to explain?
Pirates = Disneyland + Johnny Depp (Don't believe the Depp part?  Watch all the women who see Dead Man's Chest)
Wedding Crashers = Owen Wilson + Vince Vaughn + R Rated Comedy
Big Fat Greek = Word of mouth
Signs = Mel Gibson plus it was an M. Night Movie
Madagascar is pulling numbers below and similar to cars.  It's opening was less than cars (beats cars over a four day run) and dropped 40% the second week like cars.  According to the charts, compared to Madagascar, Cars should reach over the $200 million mark.

TikiBird73: Every film has a built in Fanbase. For goodness sake, Cars has NASCAR, & Larry the Cable Guy. Cars has more major celebrities probably than any Disney movie (Bonnie Hunt, Larry the Cable Guy, Owen Wilson, Richard Petty, Cheech Marin, Michael Keaton and Paul Newman to name a few).



I love how everyone's trying to blame Car's disappointing box office on everything else. "It's the ticket prices....it's the competition.....it's the over-abundance of CGI......it's the lack of a fanbase....etc...etc...etc." Could it possibly be that Cars isn't as good as Pixar's other movies? Could it be that the character design looks like that of Bob the Builder or Jay Jay Jetplane? Could it be that cars simply aren't loveable? Could it be that Pixar went to niche with the boys/nascar theming? Maybe instead of blaming other things, we'll see that just maybe Pixar is at fault.

Prior to the movie's release, I could have believed that Cars simply wasn't as good as Pixar's other movies.

But it was.  At least to me.  I don't know if it's my favorite Pixar movie, but it's still a good movie.

On a side note, Bonnie Hunt is considered a major celebrity?

On another side note, I don't think it's reasonable to entirely discount ticket prices vs DVD.  I'm a single male, and there have been plenty of times I've skipped movies because I know that to get a ticket, popcorn, and a soda, it will cost me as much as the DVD would cost, and if I just wait a couple months, I can buy the DVD and have it forever.

And I'm just one person.  A family of four?  They're probably spending $20-$30 on tickets alone, nevermind snacks.

Honestly, is box office the be-all-end-all?

Not as far as I'm concerned.

I think a film should be judged based on the QUALITY off the film, not the QUANTITY of cash the film earned.  Shrek and Shrek II earned boatloads of cash, but that doesn't make me think they're good movies (especially Shrek II).  Same goes with Titanic.  On the other side of things, there are lots of great movies that simply didn't find audiences in the theatres, and that doesn't make them bad movies...

I dunno, maybe I'm just one of those people who doesn't care about the business side of things, and really just cares about the quality of entertainment.

I'll make it short . . . since the odds of ANYONE reading down this far is
rather slim.

1.  Anyone who is looking at $200 million domestic as a "disappointment" needs to serious recalibrate their expectations.  You can't base your profitability strategy on "we're going to make one of the most popular movies of all time."

2.  Only idiots are going to pass judgment on the Pixar acquisition based on "Cars".  What matters in the Pixar deal is whether Lassiter and Catmull can restore the luster at Disney animation.

Yep, Pixar is at fault. Lassetter, go stand in the corner, you naughty naughty boy.You made a profitable movie with profitable characters, but it should have been more profitable. Shame on you, you bad bad boy. I'm very disappointed in you, and I had such high expectations for you. You've let me down terribly. I just hope you've learned a lesson.

With regard to my prediction that Cars will do well over the long haul, especially as compared to "Chicken Little" or "Home on the Range" it is based simply on the fact that I've seen all these movies. "Chicken Little" was poorly reviewed for a reason. Was it cheaper to produce and thus made its money back sooner? Yes. But, to a large extent, that showed. Dreamworks keeps cranking them out, but with a couple of exceptions, their films are as forgettable as Disney's recent efforts.

Pixar is creating their movies to be long term classics, like the best of Disney in the classic era and the 90s. I think they are succeeding. And, even if Cars isn't better than Nemo, the Incredibles, Monsters or Toy Story, it is an excellent addition to what they've made before.

As far as the expectations go, I wonder who is really building those expectations. Seems to me that Pixar isn't focused nearly as much on the money their films will make but, rather, on the quality of the films they produce. Sure, money and budget play a role in what they do, but quality seems more important. Pixar seems to understand that quality is how you succeed in the long term and make movies that will last the long haul.

Sure, be disappointed, but realize that Pixar would eventually fail to meet such high expectations (every film doing better box office than the last). You were bound to be disappointed eventually. Judge Cars on its own merits and though it might not be the best Pixar has done, it is, objectively, a very good movie. Don't let disappointment with box office projections ignore that fact that Pixar has yet to make a crummy movie.

I was curious as to why people think Cars isn't as good as the other Pixar movies...  but then it hit me.  Many negative reviews thought cars was a step backwards for Pixar.  But why?  Pixar didn't use very Adult Themes (not the naughty kind, the dark kind).  Monsters Inc. starts the path, but reverts back.  Sulley and Boo have to depart at the end, but are reunited.  Finding Nemo... the movie opens with a Bambi Moment.  The rest of the movie deals with the fish not dying from the world around them.  The Incredibles... the most adult american animated film ever, imho... has adults trying to KILL kids.  A superhero hidding in the bones of dead superheros?  That's pretty dark and adult for an American Animated movie.

Now Cars.  Pixar didn't include a dark, adult theme.  It's a simple story about a guy who wants to be the best and do everything his way as fast as possible.  I personally think Cars is the second best Pixar movie behind the Incredibles.  (Side note:  I think the Incredibles is the best movie of all time and that comes from someone who knows why Citizen Kane and Casablanca are supposed to be #1 and #2 all time.)  All I know is that the Cars products are selling out everywhere.

Everyone has different opinions.  I respect that.  If someone doesn't like cars, they don't like cars.  That's fine.  I just want someone to explain why they didn't like cars besides people saying "cars aren't real."

Yeah, Jim Hill is a fricking idiot! Can you say HATER IN THE HOUSE!

First off, I want to say that I respect everyone's opinions here.  Okay!  
tjkraz- "In Hollywood, expectations rule.  Are Jim's articles on 'Cars' negative in tone?  Sure.  What choice does he have under the circumstances?"
Why is Jim picking on "Cars"?  "Shrek II" was Dreamworks' highest grossing animated film, and yet I don't remember the constant articles saying how much of a disappointment "Shark Tale" or "Over the Hedge" or whatever other movies were.

mawnck- "buncha mouse-eared pin-trading socially-outcast armchair cheerleaders"
That's just mean...is someone who spends a lot of time watching sports a jersey-wearing card-trading socially-outcast armchair cheerleader?  We just happen to have strong opinions about Disney because we care about it.  I, for one, care so much because I want to work for the company when I graduate college in 2-4 years.

askmike1- "Could it possibly be that 'Cars' isn't as good as Pixar's other movies?  Could it be that the character design looks like that of Bob the Builder or Jay Jay Jetplane?  Could it be that cars simply aren't lovable?  Could it be that Pixar went to niche with the boys/Nascar theming?"
If I had to choose, I'd put "Cars" at the top of my Pixar favorites list.  It's different (I don't like racing but loved the TV-racing parts), and the characters were all strong personalities.  Mater is now one of my all-time favorite animated characters.  The thing about Pixar that I love the most is the heart their movies have.  I, personally, think the character design was great.  Making cars into "living, breathing" creatures couldn't have been an easy task.  I can't wait to see all the concept art and various character designs on the DVD.  And, a JHM reader posted a week or so ago that his daughter now brings her Sally doll to school instead of her favorite doll since birth.  That's a lovable car right there.  I'm not sure if Pixar was aiming 'Cars' at the boy market, but plenty of girls/women have seen it, me included.  I loved it.  The characters, story, and animation are excellent.  

Anonymouse and Importance- quality, not quantity.
Thank you for saying that!  Studios do make movies to make money, but it's great that Pixar prides itself on making great movies.  Since the movies are good, they make money (but, you say, bad movies make money, too...that's true.  I don't know why...they don't make money from me).

Importance- "Dreamworks keeps cranking them out, but with a couple of exceptions, their films are as forgettable as Disney's recent efforts."
Again, where are all the negative articles on how disappointing post-"Shrek II" Dreamworks films were?  
Jim just hates Disney (and, if that's not the case, please, Jim, tell us why, or we'll probably be bothering you about it for a while.  I respect you and have been a reader for years, but it's just disappointing that you have been so negative, not only about "Cars",  for a while now.).

WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT MONEY?!?!

I can't believe how much time is being wasted by all these wanna-be financial analysts. My one comment on this is that if you want to know the consensus opinion of Disney's financial status, there is this thing called the stock market. If you look at Disney's stock price you will see it has gained roughly $1 per share over the past five days. Investors are buying the stock.

But why aren't we talking about the film itself?! I have read Jim Hill's "stuff" for a years and it is pretty obvious he prefers his inside Disney sources over Pixar. We are all entitled to our opinion, but his negativism over Pixar is really starting to turn me off. If we are to judge the quality of films by their financial success, how many classic Disney films must we throw out from our movie collection? Fantasia? Alice in Wonderland? Pinnochio? Give me a break!!!

I thought Cars was beautifully made, had a strong message, and more importantly, had *heart*. Those were all lacking in that soulless production Chicken Little. I rented that movie on Netflix and was upset that I wasted two hours of my life on that garbage. Thank goodness I didn't buy the DVD or see it in theaters.

Mymain complaint is that I did not like th profanity in this G-rated picture. There shouldn't be words in a G movie that you wouldn't want your five year old saying. The biggest problem is that some of the content was more Incredibles and less Nemo. As a parent, I wouldn't want my son to watch this movie repeatedly and end up memorizing these lines.

Is it just me or has this site turned into all things negative about Disney and Pixar since Jim's tour was kicked out of Disneyland?

Icewindnet - Which movie had the profanity?  Cars or Chicken Little?

Icewindnet- "I did not like th profanity in this G-rated picture"
I agree- I was shocked.  But, if the MPAA thought that it was okay to be rated G, then what can we do?  
TikiBird73- "Cars" used the phrases (sorry if it's a "spoiler") "Hillbilly Hell" at least 2 or 3 times, and "sexy hot rod".
And, TikiBird73, I had forgotten about that...is that why Jim's negative?  And, I'm concerned that there hasn't been a new article posted for today...I was thinking maybe we hurt Jim's feelings (which I don't want to do), but I doubt that's the reason.

"I thought Cars was beautifully made, had a strong message, and more importantly, had *heart*. Those were all lacking in that soulless production Chicken Little. I rented that movie on Netflix and was upset that I wasted two hours of my life on that garbage. Thank goodness I didn't buy the DVD or see it in theaters."

Amen. Chicken Little (adult language to follow) SUCKED!!! And sadly, I did take my DD to see it in the theater, which means I not only wasted 2 hours of my life on it, I wasted 25 bucks, too! What a piece of trash ...

I had to laugh when askmike actually insinuated that Chicken Little characters had some chance to be memorable 10 years from now. They're not even memorable NOW, unless you mean memorably bad.

All of us who have a clue should stop wasting time arguing about Cars and "is it a success" or "is it a failure" ... it's a GREAT movie with GREAT characters and a GREAT story and a GREAT message. That's MORE than enough for me.

>>WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT MONEY?!?! <<

The fact that you have to ask pretty much says it all.

Just a few more shots, then off to work:

>>Ya can't top pigs with pigs.<<

Toy Story 2.  Oink.

>>I would like anyone to give the series of events where Disney is better off for not having purchased Pixar.<<

No bite from me.  That was never my point at all.  I'm not anti-Disney or anti-Pixar.  I'm anti-dumb-fanboys.

>>Both (hp more than Narnia) had a HUGE fan base even before the books were talked about being made into movies.<<

Pixar didn't?

>>Anyone who is looking at $200 million domestic as a "disappointment" needs to serious recalibrate their expectations.<<

Movie studios base their operating budgets on projected earnings.  When movies fall $50 million short of their financial expectations, layoffs and budget cuts follow.

>>I was curious as to why people think Cars isn't as good as the other Pixar movies.<<

Well, the critics said it better than I can, but the story was too predictable, the relationships weren't handled very convincingly, and the movie gets too car-geeky for us non-car-nuts.  Not a bad movie, but not up to the usual Pixar gold standard.

>>I think it'll be really interesting to see how the other 3 CGI releases (Monster House, Ant Bully, and Open Season) do over the next two to three months.<<

Agreed . . . but you left out Barnyard, Everyone's Hero, Flushed Away, Happy Feet, Meet the Robinsons and Food Fight.  That's just through April.  We're just gettin' started, kids.

"Why is Jim picking on "Cars"?  "Shrek II" was Dreamworks' highest grossing animated film, and yet I don't remember the constant articles saying how much of a disappointment "Shark Tale" or "Over the Hedge" or whatever other movies were."
1) Shark Tale & OTH weren't expected to be big hits. Dreamworks set themselves as a one hit wonder (with Shrek). I mean, look at their previous animated films (Antz, Spirt, Prince of Egypt, etc). This is why Madagascar was considered a surprise hit. Pixar on the other hand set themselves up as a studio whose next film does better than the previous.
2) Despite what it says on top of the page, Jim Hill Media IS a Disney website. Jim focuses on Disney unless something major happens outside of it.


"I loved it.  The characters, story, and animation are excellent."
If Cars was so good, why did only 76% (which is actually down from yesterday) of the critics on rotten tomatoes give it a fresh review? Some of the negative comments include "None of the characters in Cars feel like flesh and blood" , "All of this sloppy characterization would have been forgivable if the cars had funny things to say, but the script is mainly a succession of bad car puns" and "Thank God for the technical glory of Pixar, because if we had to rely on script and performances, Cars would crash and burn."


"Jim just hates Disney"
Saying that from just reading this article is dumb. JHM is a Disney site. He focuses on Disney....the good AND the bad. If you want a "lets-love-and-praise-everything-Disney-and-Pixar-does" site, go somewhere else. Jim is critical but fair. Jim does NOT hate Disney & if you'd read any of his other articles, you'd see that.


"WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT MONEY?!?!"
Because that's the whole PURPOSE of the box office. More money=More people seeing the movie more times.


"If we are to judge the quality of films by their financial success, how many classic Disney films must we throw out from our movie collection? Fantasia? Alice in Wonderland? Pinnochio? Give me a break!!!"
Adjusted for inflation, Fantasia and Pinnochio are 2 of the biggest films of all time (Fantasia comes in at #20 & Pinnochio comes in at #36).


"Is it just me or has this site turned into all things negative about Disney and Pixar since Jim's tour was kicked out of Disneyland?"
Will you ever listen? Jim is NOT being negative, he is being critical. If you'd step outside the Magic Kingdom for a few seconds, you'd see that the Box Office numbers are no where near where they should be. Does this article have a negative tone? Yes, but what else do you want Jim to do, lie?


"Cars used the phrases (sorry if it's a "spoiler") Hillbilly Hell at least 2 or 3 times, and sexy hot rod."
If Cars used phrases like that, how the heck did it get a G rating while Home on the Range got a PG. That is rediculous in my opinion.


"And, I'm concerned that there hasn't been a new article posted for today...I was thinking maybe we hurt Jim's feelings (which I don't want to do), but I doubt that's the reason."
Jim doesn't usually post articles on Wednesday. Usually it's 'Wednesdays with Wade', but since Wade left, it's usually been a guest writer on Wednesdays.


"All of us who have a clue should stop wasting time arguing about Cars and "is it a success" or "is it a failure" ... it's a GREAT movie with GREAT characters and a GREAT story and a GREAT message. That's MORE than enough for me."
Fact is though that a lot of people don't feel that way. Many reviews around the country talk about how even though the visuals are beautiful, the plot & character designs are not good.

"Fact is though that a lot of people don't feel that way. Many reviews around the country talk about how even though the visuals are beautiful, the plot & character designs are not good."

Reviews are totally irrelevant, IMO. Who cares what some moronic columnist thinks about a film? 99.9% of the people who saw the film loved it. Many of them (including myself) are ranking it as the best Pixar film ever.

If people missed out on the great storyline and wonderful character development simply because they were too narrowminded or stupid to get past the fact there were cars on the screen instead of people or cute, fuzzy animals, that isn't my problem.

Your loss, not mine.

And while you may be right that Jim doesn't hate Disney, he does obviously have an axe to grind with Pixar. He hasn't said a single good thing about the acquisition when virtually every other Disney site on the Web recognizes it for the godsend that it is.

At the end of the day, even if the film underperforms and even if some people say the plot and story isn't up to par (which I and most others VEHEMENTLY disagree with), the fact is it is literally 1,000 times better than any 3 films that Disney put out on their own in the last 10 years.

Outside of Lilo and Stitch (which was a lot more Sponge-Bob-esque than Disney-esque if you ask me), they've produced nothing but crap since Katzenberg left. And not just crap, but dismal box-office failures as well.

So while you might compare Cars to other Pixar films and say it comes up short, it still BLOWS AWAY any of the garbage animated films Disney produced on their own.

Guys, look, Jim's not a Disney or Pixar hater. He's just lost perspective because he's right, and he's getting bashed so hard, he CAN'T say anything new or good about Cars, because he's being forced to stick to his guns. Cars hasn't made the money it was supposed to. The movie has also received more criticism than other Pixar films. And regrettably, it's very important that it didn't. Disney would typically react poorly to this, being as short-term thinking as they are. That's Jim's story and it's all both true and newsworthy. So stop with the personal attacks.

That said, I remain in the camp of those that thought "Cars" was fantastic. Not just enjoyable, but leagues beyond the rest of the industry and very much up to the usual Pixar gold standard. A prime example of Pixar's UNIQUE ability to take something anything, even a car, and making a movie with laughter and tears and class that men, women, boys, and girls can ALL relate to and love. I went with four girls, ages 3, 6, 24, and 33. All were blown away. None of us care much for cars or NASCAR.

That there are some who don't share that opinion bothers me not even a little. Art is subject to opinion. Critics in particular are a poor gauge of quality and getting worse every year. But regardless of the money, my camp is still bigger than your camp. Most people I talk to absolutely loved Cars and are very excited to talk about it. Those few that haven't, without exception, still liked Cars better than any CGI film produced by another studio, except the Shrek fims, but including Madagascar and Over the Hedge. Pixar has succeeded in again showing the animation industry what they should be producing, but can't seem to manage.

Here's my prediction. As long as Pixar continues working to their normal standard, taking their time and making every film a labor of love and quality, as long as they stick to what they're best at, they will not only make money, but they will outlast the current CGI glut of crap. Just the way that Disney used to ride out animation fads, again and again dominating by rising above the overproduction craze and emerging the only studio with a stellar reputation, or any reputation at all, frankly, for making good animated films.

Remember that Disney? That focus on quality is what Eisner killed in them. It's what we all used to complain about on this site. Pixar has it, and they are the only hope I see of transfusing that focus back into the Disney company. Their continued reputation for quality will not just keep them afloat. It will carry them into solid market dominance, unless some other studio catches on. So far, no other studio shows any sign of doing that, so I'm not particularly fussed if Cars didn't meet expected earnings. Unless you're a financial analyst or askmike1, Pixar's reputation is deservedly intact.

What do people really think about the movie Cars?  Well audience ratings are very good.

93% User fresh at Rotten Tomatoes
B+ rating at Box Office Mojo
A Rating at EW.com
7.8 at IMDB (I believe tied 15th overall in user rating for all animated movies all time)

Still some pretty impressive numbers.

I also don't think that Jim Hill is a Disney hater, or has anything against Pixar, but I do think his articles take a negative slant. It's one thing to comment that Cars isn't performing as well as people would have liked. But then that's the only comments that there are. There is no optimism that says, "let's hope that Cars is able to last", or qualifying statements like, "despite not beating the previous Pixar releases, Cars is still the x highest grossing movie of the year". I'm all for being critical, but I think being critical means looking at both sides of the coin, not just the negative side (or the positive one for that matter). How about a little optimism Jim?

The last movie I saw more than once in the theatre was The Little Mermaid, and that was because at the time there was still the "this will never be released on video" thinking.
Now, forget the theatre, I will wait and watch Cars for the first time on my 42" TV when it comes out on DVD, and THEN I will formulate my opinion of the movie.

"Shark Tale & OTH weren't expected to be big hits. Dreamworks set themselves as a one hit wonder (with Shrek). I mean, look at their previous animated films (Antz, Spirt, Prince of Egypt, etc). This is why Madagascar was considered a surprise hit. Pixar on the other hand set themselves up as a studio whose next film does better than the previous. "

What a bizzare thing to say. I bet those Dreamworks people are saying, "Phew! I'm glad we only had one big hit! Thank goodness we don't have the pressure of living up to hit-after-hit-after-hit!". This is all about, to quote Greenspan, irrational exuberance. The financial returns aren't topping the previous film and everyone is running around saying the sky is falling, Pixar has lost it, its a lousy picture, Disney is in trouble, etc.

"If Cars was so good, why did only 76% (which is actually down from yesterday) of the critics on rotten tomatoes give it a fresh review?"

I prefer to think for myself. I could trot out a bunch of films that were hated by the critics, but were big successes and good films (and vice versa). Even despite this, Rotton Tomatoes is not a scientific statistical sampling and thus just another opinion. At what point is it considered a good review? 80%? 94.764%? Its arbitrary.

"Saying that from just reading this article is dumb. JHM is a Disney site. He focuses on Disney....the good AND the bad. If you want a "lets-love-and-praise-everything-Disney-and-Pixar-does" site, go somewhere else. Jim is critical but fair. "

I agree that it is silly to say Jim hates Disney. He is opinionated, like the rest of us. He is critical, but I don't think he is necessarily fair. I have not found another site on the Internet that has been so harsh to all things Pixar as here at Jim Hill Media - especially after the Pixar acquisition was announced. I was really surprised by this but have come to realize that there are certain factions in the company (certain groups of Imagineers & animators) that Jim has a partisan allegiance to. That allegiance colors his writing. It's a free country, and he is entitled to write most anything he wants, but I wouldn't call him "fair".

"WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT MONEY?!?!"
"Because that's the whole PURPOSE of the box office. More money=More people seeing the movie more times."
Well no kidding. My point was that all the criticism in these comments has to do with box office returns. I have seen very few criticisms about the film itself. Oh my gosh, they were expecting $80 million and it only made $60 million! Pixar has lost it! We won't know the full impact until years from now. After the overseas run is over, the DVDs are released, new attractions put into the parks, more merchandise sold, ciritics revised their reviews, etc. Calm down people.

"Adjusted for inflation, Fantasia and Pinnochio are 2 of the biggest films of all time (Fantasia comes in at #20 & Pinnochio comes in at #36)."

You like to play around with numbers don't you AskMike? :) Let's not forget to inflate the *costs* of those same films! The fact is Fantasia was a financial failure when it was released in 1940. The critics didn't like it. The film didn't break even until its re-release in 1956. Even then, it wasn't until the hippies of the 60s caught onto the film that it gained in stature. Pinocchio recovered only half of its production costs when it was released in 1940. Critics didn't like it. They were *expecting* a romance like Snow White. It has since gone on to be "critically acclaimed", deemed "culturally significant" by the Library of Congress, and has sold a lot of videos, DVDs, and theater tickets from re-releases.

"If Cars used phrases like that, how the heck did it get a G rating while Home on the Range got a PG. That is rediculous in my opinion."

I agree. I can't believe they got away with that one. I'm very disappointed that Pixar included those words. What is wrong with the MPAA standards?!

>> I have not found another site on the Internet that has been so harsh to all things Pixar as here at Jim Hill Media<<

Missed LaughingPlace's review of Cars, didn't ya.

For more fun, Michael Barrier's review is up:
http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Commentary/Cars/Cars.htm

"Every film has a built in Fanbase. For goodness sake, Cars has NASCAR, & Larry the Cable Guy. Cars has more major celebrities probably than any Disney movie (Bonnie Hunt, Larry the Cable Guy, Owen Wilson, Richard Petty, Cheech Marin, Michael Keaton and Paul Newman to name a few). "

I'm not a NASCAR fan, and I'm not very familiar with Larry the Cable Guy's material. Also, The Jungle Book had a lot of celebrities of the day, and still did record business.

"I love how everyone's trying to blame Car's disappointing box office on everything else. "It's the ticket prices....it's the competition.....it's the over-abundance of CGI......it's the lack of a fanbase....etc...etc...etc." Could it possibly be that Cars isn't as good as Pixar's other movies?

"Could it be that the character design looks like that of Bob the Builder or Jay Jay Jetplane?"

Really? I was thinking of Clyde Geronomi's Susie the Little Blue Coupe and Tex Avery's One Cab's Family throughout the film.

"Could it be that cars simply aren't loveable?"

Perhaps. Ants are just these little annoying creatures who raid our kitchens during the summer. And monsters don't really have much appeal outside Halloween.

"Could it be that Pixar went to niche with the boys/nascar theming?"

Again, I'm a guy, and I really don't give a crap about NASCAR, so you lose again.

"Maybe instead of blaming other things, we'll see that just maybe Pixar is at fault."

I don't think any film company can be given a justifiable time-out just for not reaching expectations. Cars' profits, which should be more than double its production and promotion budgets, should cancel out any delusional "disappointments" that came from its domestic intake.

The only reason why expectations were so high this time around is because people today are more aware than ever about Pixar's near-flawless track record. Ask any 'A' student: Anybody that maintains an excellent track record is going to be pressured to do better each time, and eventually reach the point where they come short.

It's a little early to say whether Pixar has peaked. Unless their next film brings in less numbers, Pixar is not at fault for the current numbers they're getting from Cars.

"As long as Pixar continues working to their normal standard, taking their time and making every film a labor of love and quality, as long as they stick to what they're best at, they will not only make money, but they will outlast the current CGI glut of crap. Just the way that Disney used to ride out animation fads, again and again dominating by rising above the overproduction craze and emerging the only studio with a stellar reputation, or any reputation at all, frankly, for making good animated films.

Remember that Disney? That focus on quality is what Eisner killed in them. It's what we all used to complain about on this site. Pixar has it, and they are the only hope I see of transfusing that focus back into the Disney company. Their continued reputation for quality will not just keep them afloat. It will carry them into solid market dominance, unless some other studio catches on. So far, no other studio shows any sign of doing that, so I'm not particularly fussed if Cars didn't meet expected earnings. Unless you're a financial analyst or askmike1, Pixar's reputation is deservedly intact."

Well said, btbarlow! Your post is the best one for this entire thread. History has shown how fickle the public can be. It is the sick side of human nature to want to build someone or something up and then see them smashed to the ground. The Pixar folks should just weather this storm, stay the course, and just keep on working.

I still don't understand most of you.

Was the film a failure?  No, Jim says as much.

Is it a disappointment?  YES!  Disney bought Pixar at a certain price expecting to make that back.  With Cars looking to not do as well, it's looking like they overpaid in the short term.  While that will change in the long term, almost guaranteed, it does give Disney less money to work with right now.

And Disney stock had been moving based on these expectations.  When the movie doesn't meet them, the stock will reflect it, even if minimally.

None of this has anything to do with the quality of the film.  Good movies fail or underperform all the time.

And no, this isn't an apples-to-oranges comparison, as all these movies are competing for the #1 spot.

And to the guy that said this is all a dance by the execs for the second round of negotiations... what second round?  With who?  Disney already bought Pixar.  There are no more negotiations.

Again, I consider myself one of Pixar's biggest fans.  But I won't see this movie until I can do so for free.  NASCAR and redneck jokes don't do it for me.  Maybe if there wasn't a rusted, buck-toothed pickup truck I'd be in a better mood.  I know most people loved the character, but I can tell from previews he'll just make me turn off the dvd player.  And I know many, many people that agree with me.
But I don't know a single person under 30 not drooling over the next Pirates.  With Superman's trailers alienating at least as many people as it's attracting, I'd expect Pirates to be the biggest hit of the summer.  At least of the first half.

"That focus on quality is what Eisner killed in them."

Eisner failed to realize that saving a penny today could cost two pennies tomorrow.
He stripped the magic out of Disney by focusing on the bottom line.  The problem there was that he failed to realize the DIsney name was a huge, untarnished selling point.  And he tarnished it.


Saying that Cars is a disappointment doesn't mean that quality doesn't matter to Disney.  No one is jumping out of windows.  No one is clammoring for huge changes.  They're just realizing that Pixar isn't completely infallable at the box office.  And they're likely wondering what marketing mistakes were made.
Which were many.  Even around here, where people clearly care more about defending Pixar from any form of criticism than facing reality, many people were discussing how negative the reaction to Cars marketing was.  How that first trailer did little to inspire the average American to rush out and see it.


Lastly, for what it's worth, quality is subjective.  The general consensus might not be the best way to judge quality, but it is worth looking at.  The general consensus of JHM readers is that Cars is a great, fantastic movie.  But readers here have a strong bias.  The general consensus among critics at rottentomatoes.com is that Cars is an average movie, not a quality one.

Let me repeat - critics did not respond to Cars like other Pixar movies.  Sure, everyone here thinks it's a conspiracy for some reason, but it isn't.

The bottom line is Cars did not have the quality people expected from Pixar.  It was missing something.
The lowest rated Pixar movie to this point had been A Bug's Life, getting a 91% on rottentomatoes.
Cars has a 76%, that's a full 15% difference.

So while you may see as high quality as previous Pixar, it's worth pointing out that the majority appears to disagree.  And that's worth looking into.

"Again, I'm a guy, and I really don't give a crap about NASCAR, so you lose again."

Disagreed.

You being a guy goes with his point, first off.

And secondly, there's a large percentage of people out there that hear southern twangs and see stock cars and just groan, unable to deal with it.

Come to NYC and see how popular NASCAR is.  See how popular country music is.  See how popular redneck jokes are.  It causes strong emotions in people in this area.  Negative.  The same is true in most of the Northeast and the West Coast.  It has its fans, but for each fan there are three people that literally cannot stand the entire atmosphere.


We'll see how Will Ferral's NASCAR movie does relative to Elf or Anchorman.  But even that isn't fair, as most people expect it to mock NASCAR, whereas Cars celebrates it.

Has anybody noticed that the "industry" is dissapointed in the earnings of EVERY major movie this year.

Some examples:
Da Vinici's 200 million should have been 400 million. (680 mil worldwide)
X-Men 3 had too big of a second weekend drop and will only make 225 million.  (400 mil worldwide)
MI:III won't make it's money back in the US. (339 mil wolrdwide - a real dissapointment but not a disaster)
to a lesser extent:
The Break Up is falling too fast for a romantic comedy and will "barley" pass 100 million.
Ice Age 2 failed to his 200 million and dropped too fast for a family film after it's fast start. (636 mil wolrdwide)
It's even been written that Tokyo Drift should have done better and now it won't be a 100 million hit.

Poor Superman will never live up to expectations with expectations placed so high for every film.  It may not even topple "Aquaman."

Yeah, loved that "Aquaman" made $116mil in its first 3 days...best ad variety ever had....

"Has anybody noticed that the "industry" is dissapointed in the earnings of EVERY major movie this year. "

You are absolutely right, Mercury. It has been a long time since box office sales in general has shown growth. The Passion single handedly rescued industry totals from a couple of years ago.

Jim Hill has already got his free pass for Pirates II set-up (quote from above): "Now this Gore Verbinski film just has to be a smash hit in order to make up for "Cars" somewhat lackluster performance." So if Pirates II doesn't beat Pirates I, or whatever "expectation" Jim chooses, it will be Pixar's fault. He's gotta protect his buddies at Disney...

"Come to NYC and see how popular NASCAR is.  See how popular country music is.  See how popular redneck jokes are.  It causes strong emotions in people in this area.  Negative.  The same is true in most of the Northeast and the West Coast.  It has its fans, but for each fan there are three people that literally cannot stand the entire atmosphere."

MosquitoControl, I agree with your assessment. As someone who grew up in New England, but has moved out (thank goodness), I can say that most of them look at Southerners and Midwesterners negatively. More than just the location or motorsports, I think they reject to the messages of the film: there is more to life than just a career, you should treat others well and not see them as obstacles, the importance of true friendship, slow down a bit and enjoy the simple things in life. I wouldn't be surprised if the film didn't do well up there. Still, NASCAR is the number two biggest sport nationally, behind only the NFL, so there are plenty of them to fill the seats...

"Is it a disappointment?  YES!  Disney bought Pixar at a certain price expecting to make that back.  With Cars looking to not do as well, it's looking like they overpaid in the short term.  While that will change in the long term, almost guaranteed, it does give Disney less money to work with right now. And Disney stock had been moving based on these expectations.  When the movie doesn't meet them, the stock will reflect it, even if minimally."

When you pay over $7 billion, there is no way to earn back that much money in the short term. All financial deals are valued with the long term in mind, what is called the net present value of anticipated earnings or cash flow. Also, since it was an all-stock deal, they don't really have less money to work with. Plus we *are* only talking about one movie. Disney is a big company and the film division is only one small piece. Plus, with the merchandising success, it appears Disney will be able to leverage the characters in future consumer products and in the parks.

While we can assume a trajectory of revenue for the domestic run, we are only guessing. The expectation is that Superman will be a smash hit and will wipe-out Cars. But is a superhearo retread a guaranteed success? It didn't apply to Batman Begins. Also, I've never heard of a "mediocre" movie with "lackluster" ticket sales have such good merchandising success. This is not normal and should bear watching.

I know someone has said before on here but I really think that the cg animation glut has hurt this film. I know all of "us" no the difference between a Pixar film and other ones but you would be surprised how many people don't. I think this year is really going to thin the herd hopefully so we will get less crap. Are the low grosses disappointing, yes but if this movie wasn't succesful than explain to me why the merchandise is flying off the shelves and stores can't keep the stuff in. This movie may turn out to be a bigger merchandise success for the company than some of the previous Pixar movies.

The New York Daily News has reported that Disney has made $600 million in merchandise revenue from the Pixar film "Cars."

WOW! Should they really be worried if Cars makes between 200 and 250 million in the US as compared to 250 to 300 million?  And this is without overseas ticket sales, dvd, and rental which will be good.  Once again this movie will makes hundreds of millions for Disney.

The New York Daily News article also says that Disney sales are on the up and up.   No doubt due to Cars and Pirates II merchandise this summer along with they famous other character lines: Mickey, Pooh, Princess, Fairy and the rest of the Pixar family.  

Purchasing Pixar is going to pay off big time.

I don't have time to make all the responses I wish to make, so I'll keep this short.....


"Also, I've never heard of a "mediocre" movie with "lackluster" ticket sales have such good merchandising success. "
You can thank Disney for that. If there's 2 things Disney knows how to do more than any other studio, it's how to market a movie & how to sell merchandice. Disney did all it could do to market & sell Cars. After that it was entirely up to the film & the general public.

GofForever:  "The last movie I saw more than once in the theatre was The Little Mermaid, and that was because at the time there was still the "this will never be released on video" thinking.
Now, forget the theatre, I will wait and watch Cars for the first time on my 42" TV when it comes out on DVD, and THEN I will formulate my opinion of the movie."

I still maintain my point that the DVD market is going to hurt Box Office more and more.  Cheaper, Bigger TVs with faster release time on DVD will affect the Box Office.  The future of movies will turn into OnDemand services that you have to pay for each viewing until a movie becomes unable to make money.  Then the DVD release comes.  OnDemand and DVDs will deminish the Box Office returns.  Unless something truely great is release, Titanic just might remain the highest Box Office movie of all time, imho.

As for the talk about the Classic era disney movies not making much money... Fantasia was a bomb when it came out.  Fantasia gained money through successive releases beyond the original 1940 release until the home video market stopped that practice around the early 90's.

"Even around here, where people clearly care more about defending Pixar from any form of criticism than facing reality, many people were discussing how negative the reaction to Cars marketing was."

I'm still waiting for one person to tell me why Cars was a bad movie besides them saying "cars can't be real."  If Cars wasn't a great movie, I want someone to tell me why.

Actually, TikiBird's comment leads me to wonder...

Of those folks who are, for lack of a better term, anti-Cars, how many of you have actually SEEN the movie?

I'm saying put aside your RottenTomatoes critics ratings (which are not in line with the public's views on the film, as demonstrated by the 93% user rating on that site) and look away from your box office reports-  Have you seen the movie?  Box office success aside- what are your honest opinions on the movie?

It's not just a bunch of mouse-ear-wearing pin-trading wackos that think artificially setting expectations of income and then punishing the company for not meeting them is silly. Many major companies - example Coca-Cola - have stopped releasing quarterly and annual projected sales figures for just that reason. They can be the #1 soft drink company in the world, making bazillions off of selling sugar water, but if they're off by a percentage point of a "predicted" goal, well better sell that stock - it's worthless.

I think the ultimate goal here is to try and knock Lassetter and company. It's disappointing that the Disney Company is seen as backpedaling and trying to put a good face on things, when they should seen as trumpeting the results and telling the analysts they're just a little bonkers. Any major company, especially an entertainment company, is based on politics and power struggles, and this is the first opportunity to really take some swipes at Pixar.  

In a year, I can imagine a conversation: "Well John, I read the script on your next project - about a air freshener romantically attracted to a fire extinguisher - but I really think we need to shave the budget down. You know, Cars was disappointing and your suggestions for the Submarine ride didn't increase ticket sales, so you really don't know what you're talking about."     How John reacts to these challenges will determine Pixar's fate. Hopefully it will be something along the lines of, "Oh yeah, Cars' box office worldwide take, merchandise sales, dvd sales, ancillary markets just came to somewhere over $2 billion  -- My bad."

On a side note, even Passion of the Christ - one of the biggest grossing films in a while - was considered a "disappointment." It wasn't a studio film, so a studio couldn't benefit off the massive ticket sales. Worse, theatres were packed, but nobody wanted to eat popcorn and candy during this brutal telling of the biblical story. Movie theatres exist to sell popcorn - that's why they always want you to buy the next size up for just a dollar more.

The next person you hear telling you what a disappointment this or any other movie is - ask yourself - do they write screenplays, do they produce movies? There sure seems to be a awful lot of money being made and credit being taken for such a disappointing business.

"I still maintain my point that the DVD market is going to hurt Box Office more and more."

I totally agree, TikiBird. The Home Theater movement is hurting the box office and will continue to grow as these systems become more affordable. Why would someone with a large screen HD television, DVD player, and surround sound stereo system go to the movies on a regular basis? They can be at home, comfortable, able to pause the movie whenever they'd like, not have some kid kicking the back of his/her seat, not have a bunch of bratty kids talking through the whole picture, not have to shell out $7 for a Coke, etc. It seems like common sense to me!!!

"I'm still waiting for one person to tell me why Cars was a bad movie besides them saying "cars can't be real."  If Cars wasn't a great movie, I want someone to tell me why."

I was wondering the same thing, TikiBird. There have been very, very few critiques of the movie here. I guess if you hate cars, trucks, and/or Southerners, I can understand why you wouldn't like it. But to say they aren't cuddly? Are superheros, plastic toys, or bugs cuddly? Is it *really* a big deal that there weren't any humans in the film? When you think of Pixar films, do you remember the humans or characters like Buzz, Flik, or Dori? I will give you Boo and Andy though.

Like most people on this side of the debate, I am not a blind Pixar fan boy. I will say that Cars isn't the best Pixar film ever made. In my opinion Monsters, Inc. holds that title (originality, animation, and the most emotional last two words in an animated movie I have ever seen). That said, it is still a good film, it is true to the Pixar name, and the best animated movie I have seen since the Incredibles was released. Like someone said earlier, it is art and is subject to people's own perception.

But to make your main complaint that the financial returns didn't mean Wall Street analysts expectations (as if they should respectable after all the Enron, Internet bubble, and mutual fund scandals!!!) or to trot out that 25% of critics didn't like the movie, doesn't say much. Expectations shift, critics change their minds (Pinocchio is a fine example of this!). What isn't so fickle, usually, is your *own* opinion of a movie.

Oh, and they better *not* make a Monsters II. That would really tick me off! I can handle Toy Story 3 through 17 or mutliple Incredibles sequels since it is all about adventure. But the story arc of Monsters is complete. Anything more would be tacky and tacked on.

>>I'm still waiting for one person to tell me why Cars was a bad movie besides them saying "cars can't be real."<<

There are several posts on this thread that did exactly that.  You musta skipped 'em.  That cognitave dissonance is a ***, ain't it.

Animation historian Michael Barrier is notoriously curmudgeony when it comes to his movie reviews (the only Pixar flick he liked was "The Incredibles") but his "Cars" review is the most articulate piece I've seen in explaining the movie's shortcomings--and he's right on nearly all counts.  If you REALLY care why some people weren't enchanted by it, click the link below.  If not, shaddap with the straw man arguments and go play with your plushies.

http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Commentary/Cars/Cars.htm

See ... the comments I read above about, "Come to NYC and see how popular NASCAR is.  See how popular country music is.  See how popular redneck jokes are.  It causes strong emotions in people in this area.  Negative.  The same is true in most of the Northeast and the West Coast ... " are exactly why A., I hate living in the Northeast. It's full of people who tell you how "accepting" and "progressive" they are, which basically means that as long as you agree with their viewpoints they'll kiss your ass, but if they don't like you or your beliefs you can kiss THEIR ass.

And B. it also pretty much validates what I thought about folks who claim they don't like this movie. I'd wager they never even bothered to see it ... they just said, "Oh there's a buck toothed redneck truck in it ... I won't see that movie."

It's the same sort of thing that happened to Da Vinci Code when it first came out ... a lot of people bashed the movie never having seen it just because it clashed with their own beliefs. The irony here is that the same people who would complain bitterly about the folks who pre-judged the Da Vinci Code are the exact same people who pre-judged Cars.

Once again ... not my problem. I actually AM open minded and by being so I was fortunate to go see what is a very wonderful, endearing film. Twice.

"Of those folks who are, for lack of a better term, anti-Cars, how many of you have actually SEEN the movie?"
I haven't seen Cars yet (and I believe I said that in the other thread). And until I do (if I do), I will not call it a bad movie. It could be the best movie in the world or the worst in the world, but I will call it neither until I see it. That said, I think that helps me form a less biased version of the box office numbers.



"On a side note, even Passion of the Christ - one of the biggest grossing films in a while - was considered a disappointment."
Box Office-wise (which is how Cars is a disappointment), PotC was never considered a disappointment. PotC was a film that was supposed to make no money & yet ended the day with a record-making opening weekend & over $370m in the US alone.



"Are superheros, plastic toys, or bugs cuddly?"
My opinion is that there has to be a certain level of "cuddliness." If you go too cuddly, you get Boundin' (which was so cuddly I could have puked). If you go too 'un-cuddly' you get a movie like Atlantis (though not necessarily a bad movie, one that turns a lot of people off). I think Pixar took a very 'un-cuddly' subject and made the characters look too cuddly, thus losing some audience from both extremes. (And now, I'm going to stop saying the word cuddly)



"In my opinion Monsters, Inc. holds that title (originality, animation, and the most emotional last two words in an animated movie I have ever seen)."
Definitely agree with you there.

>>And B. it also pretty much validates what I thought about folks who claim they don't like this movie.<<

Oh of course it does.  

Shall I list the dozens of movies in theaters right now that YOU haven't gone to see?  Whatsamatta wit ya?  How you can you just dismiss them?  You mean you went to see "Cars" TWICE instead of giving one of those other movies a chance?You closed-minded jerk!

Guess what?  That's how EVERYBODY picks which movies to see . . . they PREJUDGE them.

Which proves that an open mind is worthless when it's in neutral.

I don't agree ... I don't generally pre-judge movies. If I did, I would NEVER have gone to see Brokeback Mountain (which I ended up hating anyway).

YOU may pre-judge movies and, since you're obviously arrogant and self-centered, you assume everyone else does too. The thing about you is that you're so closed minded you don't even know it.

And by the way, tone it done ... you're the only one on this board who has to act like a complete *** every time he posts. Try and keep a civil tongue in your head ... there's no need to be a dick.

We've got a fun debate going on here...

I still think the merchandising success is strange. $600 million in consumer products sales with only $120 in box office sales. That means (on average) an individual ticket holder is spending about five times as much on merchandise. That is pretty impressive to me. It also shows that Cars box office + merchandise should easily clear $1 billion. I doubt that is something Chicken Little or many previous Disney films have cleared.

Also, the Disney Consumer Products division made a press release today, touting the following: "Currently, "Cars" is recording 10 to 1 more retail volume than "Finding Nemo" at the same point in its release." They plan on releasing more stuff this holiday season for the DVD release. It seems to me the Cars characters are memorable and likable by enough people to keep the retail stores busy at least. Contrast that with my last trip to a Disney outlet store a week ago where there were huge bins of Chicken Little plushes for only $0.99.

The press release was telling how successful Disney is getting with reaching the boys demographic. They tried that with Atlantis and Treasure Planet and failed miserably. Finally, with Incredibles, Cars, Pirates, Power Rangers (yuck), and even still Toy Story, Disney is finally getting some traction beyond girls and the Princesses.

AskMike1, I really hope you decide to see the movie (even if it does mean one more sale in the box office...), even a matinee. It is a fun movie and at the very least is worth the time watching it. If you saw Over the Hedge (which I did and think it is the best Dreamworks CGI movie they've made - yes better than Shrek!) and liked it, you should at least be entertained by Cars.

I think the big difference with Cars merch. vs. some of the other movie merch. is that they're getting a big slice of the adult market.

I doubt there are many adults walking around with Chicken Little shirts on.

Another possible explanation regarding marketing vs. box office numbers from previous films would be the aging of the generation that grew up with Toy Story.  I remember being amazed and loving the early Pixar movies.  I saw them multiple times.  Now, I have three kids, one who has to have a baby sitter and two who demand popcorn.  A trip to the movies kills my bank account.  However, I never bought myself a Toy Story shirt or a Monsters plush toy.  However, my sons have Incredible pajamas, Cars pajamas and we own the Cars Soundtrack (Jim was right on with that one, it is fantastic).  My life changed and where I would spend additional income on the box office in previous days, I now spend it on merchandise for my children.  You can bet we will own this movie and it will be a family favorite for years to come, but we will see it only once in the theatre because of the hassle, not the movie.

>>I don't generally pre-judge movies. If I did, I would NEVER have gone to see Brokeback Mountain (which I ended up hating anyway).<<

Oh, Pru-NELLA!  This is just too rich!

I'm glad I could entertain you.

As long as we're talking about CARS - I've seen it three times now...and, highly anticipate the release of the DVD when it comes around.  As an honest statement, CARS is my favorite Pixar film.  

The artwork for the film is amazing.  The scenery and background are believeably rendered beyond belief.  The personalities of the cars is great.  The story is rewarding and encouraging.  I have not seen a Pixar film hit this level of response within me ever before.  

Now, I must admit that I am one who enjoys road trips.  That a run out to the desert or up to the hills or exploring the back communities off the main freeway and Interstate excites me more than any cross country drive from California to Texas (or wherever) it is I may have to go.  Maybe it was that this film touched into that aspect of my soul.  

Whatever...it was a movie I highly enjoyed.  And, so have most of the people I have talked to who have been to see it.  

Most of the folk I know, however, are waiting for the DVD.  Most of them own large screen televisions and home theater systems.  I do, too.  And, I usually wait the four to six months from theatrical release to home DVD release to catch most films out during the year.  This is becoming the trend I have noted.  People not wanting to deal with the theatre house scene - the screaming kids, the seat kickers, the people who talk through a film...the price of $ 8.00 matinee or $ 10.00 evening tickets...or higher...depending upon the number of films a person sees during a year, the cost of the home theater/entertainment center is pretty much paid for within a year or two...and, with a service such as Netflix, the ability to enjoy favorite movies over and over on a large screen in the comfort of one's own abode greatly outshines the thrill of going to a motion picture complex and fighting parking, people, entry fee, snack bar costs....

Now, there are films I will go see on the large screen.  PIRATES 2 is one of them.  Perhaps SUPERMAN RETURNS.  Not sure, yet.  And, as I live in the SoCal region, the chances of going to the EL CAPITAN in scummy Hollyweird to experience the PIRATES film as well as taking a look at the displays from the film is worth the extra bucks and gas cost to take the trip and fight the infamous SoCal traffic.  

But, for the most part, Netflix and the home entertainment big screen do just fine for me.  And, if I find I really enjoy the film, well, I'll break down and  buy the DVD.  

Like I said before, in the circle I run in, at least, this is pretty much standard practice.  And, could reflect a demographic that is growing across the nation and around the world.  I don't know.  But, it could be a reason that attendance at motion picture theatres is dropping faster with each new release season.

Just a thought or two on the subject.

"I don't agree ... I don't generally pre-judge movies. If I did, I would NEVER have gone to see Brokeback Mountain (which I ended up hating anyway)."

Well, that's just a lie.
Do you see every single movie released every single year?
Or do you prejudge them and decide which are worth seeing in theaters, which are worth buying on DVD, which are worth renting on DVD, which are worth making a point of watching on tv, which are worth watching whenever you have nothing to do, and which you never hope to see?

That's prejudging.

And everyone that knows Cars exists prejudged it.  And more people prejudged it as "see some other time" than Disney and Wall Street had hoped.

Again, this could have nothing to do with the quality of the movie and a great deal to do with the quality of the marketing.

Furthermore, the "cute factor" in A Bug's Life might not have been higher than Cars, but the connection factor is.  The bugs in A Bug's Life looked like humans, acted like humans, had jobs like humans, etc.  While I assume this is mostly the same in Cars (can't tell much, thanks to the marketing) they simply aren't as close to humans as the bugs.

Also, yes I hate rednecks.  But not all Southerners are rednecks, I don't know where someone got that.  And yes, I hate NASCAR, but I certainly don't hate cars, I subscribe to Automobile, Motor Trend, Car & Driver and Road & Track.  I'm definitely a car nut.  But not redneck tow-trucks with buck teeth.  


And to the guy that said Jim set himself up in case Pirates underperforms so that he can blame Pixar... no he didn't.  He said there is more pressure on Pirates to overperform, or at least be on target.  He never said Pixar will have any affect on Pirates.



Lastly... 600 million?  While I think Cars is an awful choice to make a movie out of, I certainly can't deny the merch possibilities.  And I would imagine Lassiter knew this.  The Incredibles was a great idea for a movie but not a great idea for merch (much like The Iron Giant.  Brad Bird seems to not care.)  However, Monsters, Inc was probably the best merch movie for Pixar thus far, I've been given two stuffed Sully's in my time, and know many other people that can say the same.  
I'd be lying if I didn't think merch had a huge effect on the planning of Cars.

I find it absurd to fault Cars for its performance on Friday vs. Nacho Libre and Fast and the Furious.  Adult/teen films should be expected to outperform family films on Fridays.  At the same time, family films should post their strongest numbers on Saturdays and Sundays, which Cars did.  Also, it's summer break right now, which means that weekend box office for children's films is lower due to the fact that kids are going during the week as well.  This has been the case with Cars--the film has been posting strong numbers Mon-Thurs.  

I think the film will end up with about $225M domestic.  That may not be as good as Disney would have liked, but it's going to end up being one of the top five films of the year more than likely, and that's nothing to shake a stick at.  Overall, the box office is in decline, and it's affecting every release, not just Cars.  

When you consider that Cars should pull in a few hundred million internationally, sell a ton of DVDs this Christmas, and sell branded items like hotcakes, I don't know how you could even mention the word "failure" in your article.  

As a box office update, Cars made an estimated $22.5m, which in comparison......
$200,000 less than Monsters Inc
$2 million less than Incredibles
$4 million less than Finding Nemo

Keep in mind that while Click was Cars' only competition...
Incredibles faced opening week of National Treasure & Spongebob Squarepants Movie
Finding Nemo faced Rugrats Gone Wild
Monsters Inc faced Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

So while at first glance the numbers look OK, they really aren't (especially when compared to the competition each movie faced).

Still made it into the black this weekend, though.

askmike,

How about working those numbers as a % drop off in the third week for each of the above films, too?

Becuase that's going to be an indicator of any "legs" that Cars might have.  I think, based on week to week dropoff, that Cars actually had a pretty good 3rd week, all things considered, in comparison to the other films you mention...

>>How about working those numbers as a % drop off in the third week for each of the above films, too? <<

I believe that drop-off in the second week more than took care of any advantage it may have had in the third week.  You're reaching . . . . .

Someone's reaching, anyway ... not sure it's pilferk, though.

The thing about numbers is they're very malleable ... you can pretty much twist them to say anything you want them to. So while askmike looks for disaster (and finds it) in the numbers, an individual on the other side of the fence could just as easily twist them up and make them look good. Although, I will admit it's pretty tough to make $4 mil behind Nemo look good.

I still think this movie's legs are going to carry it longer than the other Pixar films. I could be wrong, though. I was a tad surprised the numbers for this weekend weren't a little higher. Especially here in the Northeast, the weather pushed a lot of folks indoors this past weekend. We saw a 12:50 show on Sunday and the theater was PACKED. Moreso even than the other two shows I've seen, which were both in the opening 7 days.

I happen to know a lot of folks who are definitely going to see it who, for one reason or another, haven't made it yet. I'm thinking there's still a sizeable group of folks out there who will see this movie, so we'll see. Only time will tell, I guess, but I will admit the numbers aren't looking great. I thought we'd see stronger performance by this point. Although it HAS only been out two weeks so far.

mawnck,

I'm not reaching, I'm interested.  The thing is, the only figures being presented were being "spun" to paint the worst possible picture.  He was more than happy to present "drop off" for the week 2 figures, but presented the much more derogatory "dollar differences" for week 3, rather than % drop off which he adopted in his earlier post.  That smacks of someone pushing a particular viewpoint or having a particular agenda, rather than someone honestly presenting data to provoke discussion.

I'm also trying to gauge what kind of legs, through the summer, Cars might have.

I'm also not going to qualify a movie that has grossed somewhere in the neighborhood of 160 million dollars as anything other than successful.  As successful as Disney hoped? Most likely not, at least from what we've seen so far.  But it remains to be seen how the final numbers will stack up.  It also looks to me that, given the OTHER numbers we've seen, there may be some good news for Cars in all of this.  Merchandising is selling like gangbusters.  There is considerable branding of the franchise.  I think going all "doom and gloom" on the release is certainly premature.

To add, simply looking at the numbers askmike has presented, and extrapolating, it looks like THIS, to me:

3rd weekend drop off:
Monsters, Inc 50% drop off to 22.7 million
Nemo 44% drop off to 26.5 million
The Incredibles 51% drop off to 24.5 million
Cars 27% drop off to 22.5 million.

THAT looks like it MIGHT indicate Cars will have additional legs the other pics did not have.  Is it enough to make up the difference? Probably not.  But it's an interesting set of numbers, all the same.  Of course, I'd also want to compare those numbers considering additional box office releases during the 3rd week.  Cars had, really, only Click to compete with.  It faces the juggernaut, and relatively family friendly, Superman this week....so it's possible that any legs it might have had will get cut out from under it.  We'll have to wait and see.

I think 200 million is pretty much in the bag in domestic gross, which is a smash hit by any estimation.  I think it's possible they could see more than that, depending on the legs it ends up having, and whether Pixar does anything to lure moviegoers BACK to the theaters as they have with other pictures.

Jim Said: "Last week, that number got pushed back to $250 million. Today, I've got people asking me if I think 'Cars' is actually going to be able to make it to $200 million domestic. And - to be honest - right now, I don't know."

What's everyone going to do when Cars does get that extra $45 million in the next two weeks to cross $200 Million?  That's at least $25 million for all 7 days this week and $20 million all 7 days the next.  I thought it couldn't get there.

$200 mil is in the bag and, frankly, it was absurd of Jim to claim that a movie that opened at $60+ mil wasn't going to pull in another measley $140 during the rest of its theatrical release.

Because of when this film was released and the current moviegoing environment, I expect it will continue to draw viewers throughout the summer. I don't think it's going to have that front loaded box office the way the other Pixar films have.

Why? A few reasons ... number one, I agree with those who've said that the previews for this film weren't that great. They almost definitely didn't inspire people to rush to the theater to see the film. Number two, I think there is a segment of folks who were kinda like, "Cars? Oh ... I'm not a car person." so they decided they weren't all that interested in seeing this movie (I know like 10 people that fit into this mold). However, the movie is getting GREAT word-of-mouth from people who have seen it and I think that's converting some of the skeptics. I also think that will urge the folks from number one (i.e. bad previews) to eventually get up and go see the movie.

Bottom line is I think a lot of people want to see the film, but didn't feel that overwhelming compulsion to immediately go out and see it (for whatever reason). That's not to say they never will. Like I said, I know A LOT of people who are going to see it ... they just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Me? I'm going to see it again this weekend in Cape May and I'm going to see it again when I'm on vacation in the Poconos a few weeks after that. That'll raise my total to five times seeing the film and I'm not sure I won't go a few more times after that. My daughter and I simply love this film.

This weekend we got another 14.5 million, for about a 37% drop off (the lowest % in the top 10), and by the end of Tuesday, an estimated 190 million in gross.

I think we can bank on 200 million by sometime this next weekend...possibly as early as Friday, but probably by the end of the day on Saturday.

Not too shabby for a "failure".

And what happened to Superman this weekend? Wow!

Well it did break $200 mil this weekend (no surprise there), but it had a pretty hefty dropoff. It only did $10.33 mil. Still, the total is up to $205,504,000 after only 5 weeks.

Clearly Pirates dominated this weekend, because Superman (which is only in its second week) dropped all the way down to only $21 mil this weekend. That's a HUGE dropoff.

Also that dreaded "Nacho Libre", which was supposed to be some big Cars killer according to Jim, did a measley $3.3 million in it's 4th weekend. The total is sitting at $73 million ... a far cry from $205m.

Actually, the drop off wasn't too bad...about 30% (29.3% according to www.the-numbers.com).  Again, it's the lowest % drop off of any of the "non-debut) top 10.  And better than Monster's Inc drop off in same weekend (62.15%), better than Incredibles (61.77%) and better than even Nemo's (33.92%) same weekend drop off.  

And, as you point out, it's sailed past 200 million.  Once again, I don't think ANYONE can call this ANYTHING other than a complete blockbuster success.

Some interesting comparisons, FYI:

Monsters Inc took 30 days to hit 200 million.

The Incredbiles took 21 days to hit 200 million.

Finding Nemo tood 19 days to hit 200 million.

Cars took 30 days to hit 200 million, just like Monsters Inc.  The numbers for those 2 look almost identical, now, actually, with Cars ekeing out a $1 million dollar "lead" over the same time frame.

So the movie still looks to have some legs.....and might (based on the Monsters Inc numbers) actually have a shot at that 250 million mark.  With the reduction in advertising now that Pirates is out, it might be a tough journey...but I wouldn't count it out.

Based on its performance to date, I think it's got a decent shot of doing another $45 million before all is said and done.

It looks like pretty much what I thought ... Cars will be just as successful as most of the previous Pixar films (except the wildly outrageous numbers of Nemo). It just had a different model in terms of accumulting the box office haul.

"And, as you point out, it's sailed past 200 million.  Once again, I don't think ANYONE can call this ANYTHING other than a complete blockbuster success."
Sorry, but I can't agree with this at all. The fact that it is only doing Monsters Inc numbers is not a good sign. Monsters Inc was a Winter film. It only had the weekends (and maybe a week of vacation) to get its numbers. Cars on the other hand is a Summer film and had everyday as a weekend. It SHOULD have done Nemo's numbers (or at least proportionally).

People hold Nemo up on some pedestal, saying that it can never be done again. Personally, I think that's a bunch of bull. Finding Nemo did great not only because of its great weekends but because of the fact that every weekday was basically a vacation day. No other Pixar film can say that. And is it a coincidence that Shrek 2 was a summer film too and managed over 400m?

Is Cars a failure? Absolutely not & I never said it was. Is it still doing disappointingly? At least imo, yes it is. (Oh, and Pirates faced just about as much competition as Cars did on its Opening Weekend..... so I guess that argument is gone now).

Yes mike, but we've already pretty much established the bias in your opinion, so you'll excuse MOST of us if we view the gross a little bit more realistically, rather than pessimistically.  If you can honestly say you think this isn't a blockbuster success.....you need to reexamine your criteria for such.

Any studio would view a 200+ million gross on a movie it released as a blockbuster success.  Did it meet expectations? Maybe not (of course, the other question is: were the expectations realistic in the first place?), but that doesn't detract from just how successful the movie has been. And what is HAS done certainly can't be termed "disappointing".  That's ludicrous.  It certainly has NOT been the "flop" that Jim tried to paint it as, nor has it performed as badly as you tried to predict it would.  It's surpassed, by a good amount, it's production and advertising budget and won't have to wait until DVD to be profitable (extremely profitable, it looks like).  It's had very good legs, in comparison with other Pixar movies.  AND the franchise has been very successful on OTHER fronts, too, like merchandising and advertising.

In addition, you can assert that Nemo can be done again, and given the right subject matter, the right opening weekend, the stars aligned perfectly, you might be right. It might happen again. Only time will tell.  But if you're of the opinion that every Pixar summer film SHOULD surpass Nemo....well, that's just not realistic....not from a "fan" perspective nor from a business perspective.  This movie looks like it will do Monsters, Inc numbers and, with an outside shot, even Incredibles numbers. If it manages that, it will be the 2nd or 3rd highest grossing Pixar film.  If it does that, it will manage a 250+ million dollar gross.  How can anyone not view that as successful?  When your highest grossing film is a 339 million dollar behemoth?

1) You are using regular box office numbers as the comparison. Fact is that in today's dollars, Monsters Inc comes in at $289m & Toy Story 2 comes in at $306m (with Nemo at $360m). What that means is that even if Cars does manage to end its run at $250m, it still falls somewhat short of Pixar's other recent movies. Which means that more people went to see these other films than Cars.

2) I am not saying it isn't a success. Unless the movie had a gargantuan budget (which it didn't), it would be crazy to not call a $200m+ film a success. However, as a Pixar film, it has done a bit disappointingly. We are talking about the so called "golden studio." The people who can do no wrong. The studio where each movie does better than the previous. Cars is good, but it's not the headline-of-the-year (which almost all other Pixar films have been).

3) Is Nemo's numbers possible again? Absolutely. Movies make over $300m every year. And it has nothing to do with animation because Shrek 2 somehow made over $440 million. Obviously Nemo had the advantage of being one of the only original films in a summer full of sequels, but any summer film (or even winter film) has a chance at $300m. As for whether Cars will be memorable.... that remains to be seen. I know I was in WDW for the past two weeks and never once heard anyone make any mention of Lightning McQueen or anything to do with Cars. I have yet to see anyone wearing a Mater t-shirt & merchandice (in Disney World) for Cars was at an absolute minimum.

You're rationalizing, as you've done right along, to downplay the movie's success.  There are 6000 different ways to present the numbers, and you can use many of them to support just about any opinion you wish to have.  Some of them the other Pixar movies come out on top, some of them Cars comes out on top.  But when you crunch all the data 6 different ways from Sunday, this movie is a success for Pixar and Disney.  And that's the bottom line.

On to some of the points of your post:

Unless you have actual ticket sales numbers, you can't really speculate as to how many people went to see each movie in the theaters.  You can "guesstimate", I suppose, based on average ticket price in the year of release, but even that isn't an exact science.  I've seen the arguments about "inflation adjustments" on box office takes, and it's not one I ever buy into. From a business perpective, and looking at how profitable a movie was to a studio, it's relevant to a degree.  But the way you're using it...not so much.  It doesn't look at ticket sales, just dollar inflation.  If you're judging success by "popularity",  (which is what you're saying), you can't do it by inflation adjusted numbers. In addition, "inflation adjustments" seem to be a way to try to force comparisons and it never really holds up to the litmus test of reality.  There's just too many other factors to work into the equation (overall declining box office, time of year, competition, matinee dependance, etc. etc.).  At the absolute MOST, there might be (again, assuming similar numbers between Monsters, Inca and Cars) an approximate 10% difference in attendance (and that's best case on your side), but assuming summer and more matinee opportunities...it's probably less (and possibly much less) than that.  That's splitting hairs if you're going to say one was much more successful than the other...especially when we're talking about the sheer volume that we are.

As for not saying it isn't a success...you did just that.  Read your previous response.  To my statement (which you quoted) that nobody could qualify this as anything other than a complete blockbuster success (it is a complete blockbuster, by any definition, given it's made more than 200 million and it has been successful), you said: "Sorry, but I can't agree with this at all."

On Pixar as a studio, I say that any studio that can consistently produce movies that pull in  200+ million, on a relatively small production budget, providing me with a very good profit/loss ratio....pretty much on a yearly basis...IS a "golden goose" and they're not doing any wrong.  As a business person, I EXPECT some fluctuation in that number, and EXPECT some product will be more successful with the public than others.  But so long as they're hitting that 200+ million target...I'd have a hard time getting too worked up over any one movie doing SLIGHTLY less money than another.  Until there is a verifiable and quatifiable trend to look at....well, didn't Disney make a recent movie about the sky falling?  How you can term this performance "disappointing" is beyond my grasp.  If you were a wall street pundit, who makes their living out of offering up some unrealistic expectations based on some very fuzzy logic, I could see it, I suppose.  But from a fan or business standpoint.....you just can't get me there.

On Nemo's numbers, I said they were possible.  But "Nemo" numbers are an aberation, not a rule.  And to expect a studio to produce numbers like that every time out of the box is not realistic.  Not every movie has that kind of universal appeal (fish...c'mon...everyone loves FISH), not every movie has that kind of mixture of gender friendly material, and not every movie has that kind of popularity.  You can't catch lightening in the bottle every time out of the gate.

On the merch front...you might want to head out to your local dept store.  Notice all the Cars merch (or the empty tags where Cars merch once was).  Witness the popularity of the McDonalds premiums that were a tie in.  While I'm not surprised about the lack of merch in the theme parks (there are no rides or attractions based on the franchise there), I could also see a scenario where much of the initial merch that WAS there (if any) had been either sold out, or moved to make way for Pirates Merch (since, really, that movie is much bigger of a theme park tie in).  Did you happen to check out "World of Disney"?  Out of cuiosity, I wonder what their inventory was...Anyone know?

&lt;i&gt;Jim Hill runs the numbers on Walt Disney Studios' two latest releases. And while Gore Verbinski's new film is literally putting hundreds of millions of dollars in Mickey's wallet, thanks to the shift in the box office split for &quot;Cars,&quot;

&lt;i&gt;Tired of stories about Disney films that are supposedly unperforming? Well, Roger Colton turns your attention toward Warner Bros. Studios. Which has had such a long cold streak at the box office this year, you'd think that their corporate headquarters

&lt;i&gt;Expanding the focus of the site a bit, Jim Hill takes a look at how a number of recently released CG films have done at the box office. With particular attention being paid to what happens when virtually all of these new animated features come

Im just so glad you just said Toy Story III is halted.

Not that it was terrible, it was ok. I just can NOT stand the soundtrack for the first one.. the second one was better. I just hope the third isnt on the lines of the first. That one had the worst soundtrack in the world in my own opinion (which counts for jack all most of the time)

I wish I could just work for Disney. So sometimes my voice would be heard. Even if I was just the dusting lady. LOL

Cool beans on the Monsters 2.. I think Monsters Inc is the best Pixar flick out as of yet. But I have only watched the Toy Story ones, A Bugs Life.. and well I dont know really.. who did Dinosaurs I was so bored during that one.

I want the animation back to pre CGI. I like it better painted not computer generated!!