Exactly, not a failure by any standards... but not what it should have done. Fact is that Cars is a summer film while both Incredibles & MI were fall/winter films. They got a few vacation days, but they really only had the weekends to get money. Cars on the other hand has everyday as a Saturday. I'm not saying it should have done Nemo's numbers but it should definitely have done better than MI & Incredibles.

As for Dead Man's Chest, I don't think there are words to describe what the people at Disney must be feeling right now. This movie has broken so many records so far and still have many more to break.

I agree with askmike1.
Cars did have a fighting chance in the summer. For a movie that was given as much hype as Cars, it's dissapointing to see the figures of their total sales so far. Whoever wrote that email to Jim referring him as an a**hole needs to learn how to make a strong argument without properly looking into how the entertainment business works.
Also, it does seem understandable how the Cars based toy market seems to succeed at a much higher level than the Dead Mans Chest toys' since the concept of Cars seem more playful and fun rather than the second pirates movie theme in which was made to target a slightly older audience. Anyway, how would I know. I'm new at the scene.
Nice website Jim.

Only a week late hey Jim

What ever Cars ends up making it most surely be a suscess compare to what other CGI movies have made this year.And thats what we should be looking at here not how much Cars has dissapointed Wall Street and Studio Execs.Also what you fail to point out out is that Cars is the 3rd highest grossing movie of 2006 and if your predictions come true then it should past Xmen's domestic total.

Im not saying you don't have a point with what your writing about,just that its now coming of as you being bitter,as you can make this argument about any movie.Also you miss a big difference in what Cars is making compare to what Monsters Inc took,in that Disney take the full takings of any Pixar movie now.And the fact Cars is hanging on must mean that its recieving a good word of mouth,which will bound well for DVD sales this Christmas,which like all the DCP's based cars toys will all be going for the first time ever straight into Mickey's pockets.

Also message for everyone what ever you think of Mr Hill's views,it still makes no escuse to e-mail him calling the guy a *sshole.Thats just out of order!

Oh Jim by the way I don't agree with today's article and I think your trying to save face, now that Cars has surpassed the $200 Million which a couple of weeks back you down played them doing.Also today should of been about POTC not another escuse to run down Cars,but see why you did it as there isn't a lot of negativity surrounding POTC,so you had to find something to bash!  

To be honest Jim, I love most of your articles but this one was trash.

A) How can Disney execs expect Cars to beat all the records like Dead Mans Chest is?

B) Disney is "delighted" with how POTC: DMC is doing?  Shitting their pants is more like it.  It has surpassed all the records in the record book.  It is doing ridiculously well, better than any other film.....EVER.  So, for them to think Cars would do the same...Ahem...no way.  
C) Show me some sources where you found that the contracts work this way at the theatres.  Cars is an underperformer for Pixar, recently speaking, but is sure not an underperformer.  And i dont even believe thats how the contracts work at theatres.

ONe thing is for sure.  They never expected for Cars to succeed as much as POTC for a number of reasons.  ITs not an epic film like SpiderMan or Starwars like POTC is.  Animation films core audiences are familes.  POTC has the upperhand because it has a much wider demographic.  Cars has an even smaller demographic because of its subject matter, NASCAR and mostly American concepts...which kill alot of its International Box Office Numbers.  

Bottomline, no studio could ever "expect" a film to do as well as POTC: DMC has thse past ten days.  All they could do is ever hope, or dream of such a thing to happen.  They expected "Cars" to be slightly more succesful then Incredibles and Finding Nemo in its opening weekend...didnt happen.  But now it looks to be just as succesful as Incredibles and Monsters INc in its Domestic Release.  So this is a smash hit if you ask me.  

Im done with my rant.

Cars hasn't even opened yet here in the UK, but....

My wife and I and a female friend went to see POTC2 last week. During the trailer for Supermnan Returns the whole audience applauded, and both of my lady companions said that they wanted to see it. Great.

And then the Cars trailer came on.

All the males in the audience were grinning like idiots. However, all the women started talking, getting up to go get sweeties or off to the loos, etc.

Basically, the film is a man thing. It isn't a family film at all - I can't imagine little Jessica or Bethany sitting still through a film about motor-racing (incidentally my other half says that the anthromorphisied cars looked '... odd').

I think that Cars suffered from 'Fuzzy Thinking' (TM) when it was made. If they wanted a summer blockbuster or whatever, they basically alienated 50% of the potential audience straight off the , ahem, starting grid. Also, very few people outside the US areinterested in American motor-racing.

As a fully-fledged male with a more than a wallet-unheathy interest in motor vehicles, the NASCAR aspects of the film leave me cold.

So it never, from the first time I heard about this, oh, two years ago, appealed to me, and I thought straightaway that it wouldn't appeal to the family audince of say an 'Incredibles' or 'Nemo'.

So there we go, and my final word is this: why on earth are Disney putting this out so late in the UK? Granted the school holidays only really start this week, but all the kids I talk to pretty much regard cars as old news. It's not just us animation-writer geeks who trawl the us movie websites, y'know!

Anyhow, thanks for an always enjoyable site.

Nos da.

I don't live in the UK, WelshJohnny, but I'm an American college-age girl whose only concern with cars is if mine will drive me to where I need to go.  I have no interest in them.  Even if I hadn't seen any promotion for "Cars", I would have seen it because I'm a big Disney and Pixar animation fan.  But, saying all that, I loved the movie.  A lot.  It was great.  The world of racing is only the backdrop.  Just like, at the end of the day, it didn't matter that Woody and Buzz were toys, or that Flik and Heimlich were bugs, etc.; it's about the story (I know, you've all heard that before).  But I think it's true.  Try it, you'll like it!

Since "Finding Nemo" did so well, some people (at Pixar or Disney or just anyone) may have expected/hoped that the following movies would do as well or better.  Remember what happened when "The Lion King" did so well?  Disney thought that "Pocahontas" would have done as well or better, but that didn't happen (I can't find the link, but I read an article recently about that).  It's business, I know, but it's unfortunate that the individual movies can't be taken separately.  $219 M is nothing to sneeze at, but it's not $339 M...luckily, the toys ARE selling well, so that's making up for it.

Even though "Cars" and POTC are both Disney movies, I don't think of them as in the same market...I'm not comparing how well they do in comparision to the other, since they're so different.  If they were both animated, maybe I would compare, but they're just completely different kinds of movies.

I had no idea that that's how movies' profits are split (you learn something new every day).  Lastly, thank you, Jim, for saying that "Okay. I admit it. This John Lasseter film has done quite well."  :-)

Just out of interest did Jim ever call Shark Tale,Madagascar and Over the Hedge dissapointments because none acheived as much as what Shrek made!

Throught not!

Jesus effin' christ, are you guys bitter.  Honestly, I wish the comment section hadn't been introduced; all it seems to be used for these days is attacking Jim.

Everyone seems to be overlooking how almost EVERY major movie this summer (excluiding Pirates) hasn't met the insanely high expectations that the studios have had.  The numbers that they announce or discuss internally mean absolutely squat, so I'm not quite sure why we continue to hold them to them.

Also, comparing Cars to Pirates seems like comparing apples to pudding: they're not the same kind of movie at all, so why even attempt it?

"So this is a smash hit if you ask me."


But what everyone on this board keeps forgetting is that no one is asking you.

You're not an expert, and you didn't have millions of dollars invested in this.


If I walk up to your home and tell you I have a proposition for you: give me all your life savings now and I'll give you four times that next week.  Next week I only give you a third back, and tell you I hope I can get the rest.  Three weeks later I end up managing to get you twice what you gave me.  You'd be happy you made money, right, but be a bit hesitant to trust me with that much money again, as I came through but it was close?

I would like to know what Disney's research says as to why it took so long for Cars to reach $200 million. Was it poor initial marketing of the film - too much of the racing which made it look like a boys film and not enough of the "Doc Hollywood" part of the story that would be of more interest to girls and women? The weekend it opened - not in terms of the other movies out then, but did people have a lot more to do that weekend - little league playoffs, etc.?

Also, what was the cause of the slow upticking trend - good word of mouth or was it people's backup second choice when they couldn't get it to their first choice of movie at the megaplex?

In any event, studios NEVER release their net profits, they only concentrate on the gross. So you bet Cars was a $200 MILLION SMASH HIT  like Monsters, Inc.

Also, don't under estimate the importance of the strong sales of toys and other Cars merchandise. That makes it a hit to Disney's partners who will be more likely to jump in to bed with them for future films.

And, finally lets not lose sight of the fact of how many of Walt's cartoon films actually lost money on their initial release and/or were actually panned by the film critics back then. They are now part of the bedrock that generates consistant bucks for Disney on their re-release on DVD. So, Cars didn't make a huge net on its initial release, it performed solidly, and will continue to generate profits for Disney in the years and decades ahead.

Cars - a grand slam? No. But I would say a long, empty bases homerun that along with POTC:DMC grand slam, will give the Disney Studios the summer movie pennant.

Well, looked it up and it is true--Jim DID suggest in his first article that "Cars flopped!"-Mania *may* have been due to Disney execs building castles in their imaginations, based on their ridiculously expecting the movie to outdo "Finding Nemo", as the rest of us real posters had been suggesting...
But frankly, this many articles in (not to mention the "THANK you, Spock..." ultra-dissecting of past box-office statistics every single weekend, bringing up those "Chicken Little" crusade memories) the reputation of Cars-Killer Jim is beginning to stick.

Everyone knew Pirates 2 was going to be big--Even Disney.
Lasseter only moved Cars to November A) because they didn't want CL as competition, and B) some little industry birdies had been telling them that "Incredibles was a flop because it didn't make as much as Nemo, must've been 'cause of the fall release!"
I think it's fair to say that if Lasseter -had- put Cars out in November, we would've seen a royal pantsing of Mr. Little the likes of which hadn't been seen since Incredibles vs. Polar Express....But then, there would've been that Narnia thing to worry about.  Some days, you just can't win.

Basic truth:  It's only boardroom executives who think One Movie Is In Theaters At a Time.  The rest of us real moviegoers enjoy freedom of choice, and make our decisions from there.

All the numbers mean nothing unless you include another column for costs.  Revenues alone are meaningless.  Any chance you can dig up the true production costs of both movies?  At that point the comparison will hold water.

Can someone explain to me how cute little fish appealed to men? Monsters and superheroes appealed to women? I don't see how race cars could alienate women more than the aforementioned could alienate men and women. And don't forget that a large part of southern America is into Nascar, men and women alike. To sit there and say "women aren't interested in cars" is a lazy stereotype. Not to mention, it undermines the concept that the largest demographic are young children, most of whom can't go to a movie without their Mom.

I think what everyone is missing is that the movie industry as a whole is a failure and that studios need to start rethinking how much they spend. Pirates was an anomaly inasmuch as Narnia was. They just clicked and helped transcend the other blockbusters. King Kong, MI3, X3, Superman, etc etc....are all victims of spending too much in a falling industry. Theatres are old, people in them are obnoxious, prices are expensive and turnaround to DVD is so quick it negates the need to put up with all of that. People are so quick to judge a movie by its box office take...but you really can't judge it until DVD and overseas come through. I have a feeling Cars will have Disney execs smiling a little more after the whole world sees it and it's arrived under lots of Xmas trees.

Hi Desperado!
I agree with what you say - to a point!
I am sure that lots of women are big NASCAR fans, but I am only reporting what I saw at the POTC2 showing last week here in the UK.

As far as I could see, very few of the female audience were interested in the 'Cars' trailer. When i checked with the box office people later to reserve my seats for the first showing (yes, I know, very sad), they said the advance sales were very slow, nowhere near the levels of 'Incredibles' or 'Nemo'.

I asked about with local children and it seemed to be a pretty much 50/50 sex-related split between boys and girls on the film. Although all the girls did say that they would 'more than likely' see it on dvd later.

Oh, and over here the theatres (or as we call them, cinemas) are going through a major renaissance, both in audience numbers and new building.

Here in Cardiff, the capital city of Wales, (population 316,000 at last census, with a catchment area of about 500,000 within fifty miles) for example, we have three major multi-screens, the newest of which is only a few years old, another a few miles away in Llantrissant, and another multi-screen is about to be built an hour away down in Carmarthen.

We actually have more screens in operation now than we have ever had before - when I was a little kid in the late '50s, we had 17 cinemas in the town!

And I'm sure you are right - that Disney will indeed be smiling when the totals for the rest of the world are added up and the dvds are under the xmas trees!

But most importantly - how did you all enjoy the film? Ladies as well as Gents?

Nos da.

Longtime listener, first-time caller...

Nice article, Jim. Glad to see you back online after your airport purgatory adventure last week. Quality time w/ Alice is more important than trying to appease the haterade drinkers here in the comments section.

I'll admit, I don't always *like* the information in your financial-based articles but...that information is part of the big picture. and it's necessary information that we need to keep in mind. Because the world does not revolve around me, the fact that I personally don't like some of the things that happen in it doesn't make those things untrue or irrelevant, you know? The real world is more complicated and interesting than that.

It's like...being an aunt or parent, I guess. I love my nieces and nephews to death, and think they are fun, great people who are capable of great things...but I know they're not perfect. And every now and then they screw up, act like demon spawn, or do dumb things without thinking them through. I don't love the kiddos any less, but as one of the trusted adults in their lives, it's really kind of my job to call them on it when their boneheadedness crosses the line from "harmless" to "unacceptable." It would be criminally stupid and insane to be all, "You didn't study and got a D on your test. Who cares? You're the bestest, smartest kid in the world and the teacher's just a hater!!!" or "You robbed a convenience store? Well, you're awesome! The criminal justice system is just stupid!"

Point? You're that aunt, Jim. Or uncle, rather. You love Disney/PIXAR, but not blindly. The common-sense analysis of things like CARS's theatrical performance doesn't change that. It makes your love more credible, if that makes sense.

There are enough "Disney/PIXAR rulez! Why? Because they're the best!!!!!!!!!!1!!!" sites out there.  JHM isn't a about fawning. It's about loving Disney enough to think about it & tell the truth about it.

I second spiderweb1986.  Kill the comment section.  Whatever its intended purpose, it doesn't seem to show any signs of filling it.

Jim, you've written another sensible and well-researched article about how the film business works, and then the idiots in the peanut gallery get to take unlimited and unanswered potshots at it on the same friggin' page.  Where's the sense in that?

Wow... Jim waits a week to post about how successful DMC is... Why didn't he write about it after the first weekend?? BECAUSE IT WAS SUCCESSFUL!!! If DMC took in, oh, only 80 Million... Jim would have written that article on Monday saying how terrible it did in the theaters.. But, he was left speechless cause he had nothing to bash... Now, he finally comes out of his cubby hole, and instead of leaving the article as how great Pirates performed, he had to through in the limited success of Cars... And people wonder why Jim is known as a Disney basher??? He just cannot write something positive.. He always has to toss in the negative... Jim, BOO TO YOU!!!! Go hang out in Universal Studios and give private, unauthorized tours there.. They may be grateful to get 1 more guest in their park and would allow you to gives these tours...

Cars is no box office behemoth. It's doing well, my son has the Cars toys, my daughter still has her princesses, and has no interest in getting any Cars, except for Sally.

But, I'm sure that many were hoping to find Nemo again. There has been a lot of softness in the animated feature market. Ice Age 2 didn't do what they through it would (just below $200M), Over the hedge caused analysts to lower expectations for DW share prices, and there's still more to come...many that don't look all that good.

As long as Pixar makes good films, they'll have life with DVD, merchandise, and characters. If Disney can get as much milage out of Stitch as they have (and that was by no means a box office smash - $145Mish), then Disney will do fine with Cars.

I haven't decided when "only" making $200M at the boxoffice was a problem. There's still only been two movies so far this year that have earned more money than Cars, and Cars will most likely pass X-Men 3.

But is Cars the next "Finding Shrek"? no. Should people have expected it to be? probably not.

To all our UK friends out there who aren't too keen on a Nascar themed movie, please give it a chance.
Granted, I live in the heart of Nascar country - but I am about the only one in town who doesn't give a rip about it. I grew up just a stone's throw away from the Bristol International Speedway. But while my friends were all talking about Petty and Big Daddy Don Garland, I was living off the mother's milk of Warner Brothers cartoons - and eventually made a career from it..
All that just to say, I loved this movie. It wasn't about Nascar any more that Gone With The Wind was about the Civil War (or as we tend to call it around here - the War of Northern Agression). The War was just a backdrop to a larger story.
The film is about finding the bigger picture in life. I think you'll like it.
Hey -- I don't follow bicycle racing too much, but I loved "The Triplets of Belleville"!

Jim, much like CARS fans, you, yourself are very consistant.  While I see nothing wrong with you current articles, and am enjoying the REALITY of the numbers game of movies, you ARE constantly making a point of taking potshots at CARS. Why? I'll grant you that it isn't PIXAR's best. And I didn't enjoy it as much as  would have liked.  But given it's subject matter, which I had NO interest in, the story grabbed me and I enjoyed the film more than I ever thought I would.  WHich is a testament to John Lassetter and crew. I want it to do well. And yes, I realize that you are really just reporting the facts.  But you do seem hell-bent on bringing up the numbers that aren't as good as Disney would have liked.  And you don't seem that thrilled that Pirates 2 is doing so well.  While I enjoy your site for it's more HONEST approach, it would be nice if you cold stop beating a dead horse and finish up those multipart articles that we are all axiously awaiting as well as that CD that keeps being delayed!

POTC:DMC cost about 100M more than Cars.
How does that factor into the gross? Will POTC gross 100M more than its budget as Cars is expected to do when it hits a projected 255M domestic gross?
Isnt Cars theatrical ROI still a fantastic business?
I understand that POTC may also be a licensing bonanza and rake in piles of booty. Either way Disney wins I guess. As long as it doenst hurt the political might of our animation buddies!
viva la animation!

I saw Cars for the second time on POTC opening weekend.  You have no idea  how hard that was for me.  I took my kids to see Cars by myself for the first time so this time Dad wanted to see Cars and we had to go as a family.  I will admit I was not fond of the subject but because it is a Disney/Pixar film I knew it would be good even if I didn't like NASCAR.  I think it is a great little film and the more you see it the more you like it.  My 3 yr. old son LOVES this movie.  Lightning McQueen ousted Buzz from his post on the bed.  His birthday party is a Cars themed one.  His Grandmother bought him everything Cars to redecorate his room.  I think there is no comparing the two movies.  One is for kids and the other is for older kids and adults.  I only dreamed that POTC2 could surpass Spidey and from reading Jim's articles I started to doubt.  I am a former cast member and am proud of being a Disney geek and it gives me tremendous pleasure to see this company cream the competition.  Everyone loves to bash Disney but they all end up imitating which is the sincerest form of flattery.

This is all getting to be like the stock market where a company can post a 42 billion dollar profit, but being that Wall Street expectations were for 43 billion, they are considered a failure and the bottom drops out of their stock price.........what about they made 42 billion in profit don't people understand.

If the movie makes back it's budget and the toys are selling well, hey, it is successful!  Why all of the crunching of numbers?  We still have DVD sales and secondary markets that still need to take a crack at these two movies.  It is like finding a small tear in the hull of the Titanic and letting the whole thing sink out of spite because it is no longer perfect.....um.....maybe that wasn't a good analogy.....

"I second spiderweb1986.  Kill the comment section.  Whatever its intended purpose, it doesn't seem to show any signs of filling it. "
No, that's not the solution at all. First off, the comment section has been a part of JHM long before the website upgrade (back when they used EZboard). Every website like this needs a comment section. What makes this a bit more "tense" then ezboard is that it is attatched to the article. Now what is the solution? I believe more moderation. Any post that attacks someone (be it another poster or Jim) should be deleted. People like RoadDogBC need to be banned as they have contributed zero to this forum & have only attacked Jim.  Just my opinion.

"Will POTC gross 100M more than its budget as Cars is expected to do when it hits a projected 255M domestic gross?"
Pirates will be raking in more profit then Cars by Sunday. By the end of its run, it should gross somewhere north of 370m (giving it 145+m in profit). Cars will make about 115m in profit. But even moreso, DMC is providing basically free promotion for AWE (At World's End).

I love the term "Revisionist History."  Isn't that what the history game has been about since day one?  Revising what we know about History with new information?  

The Incredibles only made $5.5 million more than Monsters Inc. Domestically and $15.5 more than Toy Story 2.  Is that disappointing?

Also, if we are introducing this new way to measure a film's gross, we need to be fair to all other movies.  Why don't we compare the first Pirates to the second this same way?  Why not all Pixar movies?  Why not Shrek and Dreamworks?  Why not Titanic?  Titanic made money months after the release.  That movie played from December to August.  Is that considered a failure because most of the money went theatres?   That movie had a consistant gross deep into it's run.  Is that considered a disappointment to the studio?

Pixar aside... I hope POTC:DMC and POTC:AWE cleans up at the box office.  Although, At World's End could be in trouble.  Most people who saw Dead Man's Chest have said they didn't like it as much as the first.  Some where confused at the ending.  I site Disney for not letting people know that DMC is only the first half and At World's End will end the story.  A teaser at the end would have been nice ala Back to the Future II.  Most people I talked to did not know that At World's End will be released next May.

What are the expectations for At World's End?  What will happen if that movie doesn't out shine DMC?  Will we see people calling POTC:AWE a failure/disappointment if it doesn't cross $300 million?

askmike1 said: "But even moreso, DMC is providing basically free promotion for AWE (At World's End)."

I wish that were so, but most people do not know that At World's End is coming.

Let's take a realistic look at this article.  First off Jim is just like any writer.  He knows the angle he wants to take and states the facts that are in his favor.  All major news people do this.  A comments section is good to give people additional information and most of the time a complete perspective like an editorial section.  I agree though lets stop the ad hominems with Jim.  Attack the info or give additonal info but leave the personal attacks out.

Personally I agree and disagree with Jim.  He's right that Disney did want stronger numbers out of Cars.  However, Cars is a successful film and is the third highest grossing film of the year domestically as it passed The Da Vinci Code this past weekend.  It also is the highest grossing CGI or animated film this year by about 30 milllion now.  The leaders, Pirates and X3, are popular franchise movies and as has been stated Cars could catch X3.

Next if we're looking straight at money in Disney's pocket well Pirates hasn't really put any back in yet.  With a production cost around 240-250 million for the film(this is without marketing costs), Disney hasn't really made any money back yet.  Don't get me wrong, it will and will make a lot.  I just thought the argument was flawed that Pirates had already made over 200 million for the company when it still hasn't made its costs back.  Cars had a production cost of 120 million half of Pirates with similar marketing costs.  In the long run both Cars and Pirates will make hundreds of millions for the company.  Pirates more at the box office and Cars more in merchandise.  I don't see why we anyone would worry about Cars not making another 50 million at the box office to be closer to Incredibles or Nemo numbers when it has made so much more (over 600 million) in merchandise than either of these movies made.  The honest truth is both of these movies are huge for the company and Disney should be extremely happy.  In a summer where movies have really underperformed (Mission Impossible 3, Superman Returns, and Over the Hedge) Disney has done well especially when you consider the production costs of MI3 (over 200 million to make with a domestic box office of 133 million) and Superman (over 250 million to make with a box office 164 million).

Just a few tidbits: I loved Cars and Pirates and hope Disney continues making such great films.  I can't wait for Pirates 3.  Also I heard Katzenburg report that Dreamworks was so happy with Over the Hedges box office that they were thinking about putting a sequel together.  I don't believe that.  I think he was trying to just get positive PR because how can you be happy and think about a sequel to a move that made a lot less than Madagascar and A Sharks Tale?  I hope Pirates will become the first movie since Shrek 2 to break 400 million.  Last rant is that I heard that the distributors of Monster House this weekend are looking for a mid twenty million dollar weekend opening.  If that number is true they are going to have a hard time breaking 100 million.

Cars was a modest hit.  Guaranteed it will make more overseas and will be a definite contender for Oscar gold.  Althought I think Monster House will take it for this year...
Keep in mind also that the toys for Pirates are just horrible.  They remind me of the old Star Wars figures of the 80's but to a much lesser degree.  The toys from Cars at least look like the characters.  They are also impossible to find anywhere.  I have to try the Mattel factory outlet store near me to see if I can find anything.  I can go to Wal Mart and find the entire collection of Pirates figures in one go because due to their poor quality, they are simply not selling...

To the people badmouthing Jim, if you want to badmouth someone, go to Ain't it Cool News, that seems to be the place for that.  That's all I will say on that subject...

"Keep in mind also that the toys for Pirates are just horrible."
Part of the problem with the PotC toys, is that they spread themselves out too thin among 4 seperate action figure lines!

Zizzle makes the "mass" market figures, including 3-3/4" Star Wars style figures and playsets, and larger 6" scale figures with "action features". They also make a 12" Jack Sparrow figure. The Zizzle figures are clearly "toys", and don't offer alot of detail in their sculpting or paint application. There's an advertisement on tv now for these toys.

NECA is doing the "adult collector" line of highly detailed 6" figures that carry a higher price and are only found at specialty stores like Suncoast Video. These look great, if you can find them. They also are making a large 18" Captain Jack.

Finally, the Disney Stores are selling their OWN line of 6" toys, with quality ranging about halfway between Zizzle and NECA, but carrying NECA's price point. This line is extremely redundant as the body sculpting is almost-but-not-quite as good as NECA, but the facial sculpts are HORRIBLE.

Gee... i wonder why the toyline isn't doing as well as the executives had hoped! They barely advertise the toys (remember how much advertising the Star Wars toys got back in the 80's?) and they spread themselves out into a  variety of toylines that are just confusing both parents and collectors.

I cannot believe some of the things I am hearing.  There is such a huge gap between people who liked POTC:DMC and those who didn't and those who thought that POTC: CBP was better.  Personally, I liked DMC better than the first one and I knew there would be no ending.  Once POTC: CBP was a success Disney announced two more sequels so why are people so disturbed by a lack of ending?  When I left the theater I was already eager to see POTC: AWE and no amount of marketing can beat that momentum.  As for the toys, they are too scary for my little ones but my kids know who Jack Sparrow is and they never saw either movie.  How's that for successful marketing....

Askmike1.. who are you? I should be banned? For what, speaking my mind? Isn't that what Jim does when he bashes Cars and Disney? SO, let me get this straight mister high almighty.... Jim can bash Disney... but the minute someone questions his articles and his intentions, that person, in your opinion should be banned? Wow... 1st amendment doesn't apply I guess.. or maybe it applies to only you since you want others who do not follow in Jim's preachings to be banned.. Maybe he can brainwash and fool you, but he cannot brainwash and fool me... When I disagree, my voice will be heard... When I agree, my voice will be heard... I just find it funny how Jim was ready with the numbers when Cars "under performed" on opening weekend, but Jim remained silent when Pirates kicked butt... if that is bashing Jim, then I bashed him.... but in no way does our question Jim's tactics or intentions any reason to be banned... Maybe you need to leave these boards if you don't like someone posting their opinions which do not coincide with yours.... Bye and have a MAGICAL day....

"Is that considered a failure because most of the money went theatres?"
No, of course not. However, that film also went on to make $600m. Even if the studio only made 40% of Titanic's earnings, they'd have made $240m. Also keep in mind that in the same time Cars has been out, Titanic made $274m (in 1997 dollars). And there is no way Jim's percentages are true. Using his numbers, by the 10th week, theaters would get all the money. I'm sure it does work how Jim said it, but just not with those percentages.

"I wish that were so, but most people do not know that At World's End is coming."
Most people may not know "AWE" is coming or when it is coming....but they do know that a sequel is coming. If you walked out of the theater and didn't know there was going to be a 3rd part, you weren't paying attention to the movie.

"With a production cost around 240-250 million for the film"
$225m is the reported cost.

"when it has made so much more (over 600 million) in merchandise than either of these movies made"
1) Where are you getting that 600m figure from.
2) In 2004 Forbe's best-selling fictional character lists, they say that Finding Nemo made $2 billion. And that was back in '04. There is no way Cars is anywhere near that number now.

>>First off, the comment section has been a part of JHM long before the website upgrade (back when they used EZboard). Every website like this needs a comment section. What makes this a bit more "tense" then ezboard is that it is attatched to the article. Now what is the solution? I believe more moderation. Any post that attacks someone (be it another poster or Jim) should be deleted.<<

I remember when they used EZboard.  By "they", I mean the 3 or 4 posters who were actually active on it.

I don't agree that every website needs a comment section, particularly when there are so many other boards that are dedicated to discussing the exact same things (only intelligently).  As for balance . . . I don't agree that you need that either (again, lots of other sites out there) and even if you did, these Cars/Pirates discussions are about as balanced as your typical Jerry Springer episode.

I think o-meon got it right when they dumped the whole discussion board operation on another site that was up and running.

As for moderation, hey, I'm all for it.  Who's gonna do it?

>>Wow... 1st amendment doesn't apply I guess.<<

Funny fellow.  

No, it doesn't.  This is not your site.

"Askmike1.. who are you?.................."
Unless I'm missing some of your posts (which is entirely possible), I have yet to see a post from you saying something other than "Jim is a Disney Basher." You keep saying that 'Jim would have done an article if it did bad' when it has been very clear that he spent the week with his daughter. Is Jim wrong for having the right priorities? And although I said banned, I meant warned (would have edited my post....but we can't do that).


"I don't agree that every website needs a comment section, particularly when there are so many other boards that are dedicated to discussing the exact same things (only intelligently)."
But these comment sections are supposed to be comments to the article. It is some of the posters here that have turned it into a Jim-bashing fest.

I agree with you askmike.  Jim clearly had his priorities last week as he wanted to spend it with his daughter and believe me, nothing comes between Jim and his kid not even this site.  I used to post on EZ Board regularly and not once did the Jim Bashing occur.  Not ever.  Anyway...

The Zizzle toys are the ones that I have seen and they are simply horrible.  I am surprised that Disney didn't go with a better company like Mattel or even Hasbro.  They would have been able to do a better sculpt of the characters.  The NECA toys are very reminiscent of the MacFarlane toys in their attention to detail.  These will be the ones I will be actively seeking out for my collection at home.  I will also be getting the prop replica merch as well from NECA as those are amazing in their own right.

Askmike1.. ok, you admit you never should have said banned.. That's good.. I want to know somehting.. You seem to know how Jim thinks, what he means in his articles, and how he spends his time... Where in the article did it state anywhere that he spent the last week on vacation with his family? Maybe I missed something.. But, wait.. you were the one who did attack me in the other pirate comment section when i asked where Jim was with the article on how well POTC did opening week.. You infact said jim was going to post the contest winner and his article on Tuesday.. Well, a week later and we get the article...which Jim includes more Disney bashing... he couldn't have just written the article about how great the movie did? he had to throw the numbers for Cars too? And sure Jim should have other priorities, which would of course include his family... And if that was the case, then fine... No argument there that spending time with family is more inportant...

Again, we get some rationalization and numbers spun to support an already established position.  I think Mickey_Hal hits the nail on the head with that assertion...

Jim's numbers, if they're accurate (I've no reason to think they're not, but have seen no other examples of this type of contract modeling and no other information seems to be available on the subject out on the net, so.....), still leave out another important factor.  Others have mentioned it.  Production budget.  I'm assuming an equivalent marketing budget (about 50 million) for each film, though I think Pirates may have gotten a larger budget.

According to www.the-numbers.com, the production budget on Cars was 70 million.  The production budget on POTC:DMC was 150 million.  Using Jim's numbers, that would mean that, so far, Cars has made (remember, sans marketing), about 93.8 million. POTC:DMC has made, so far (again, sans marketing), about 75.7 million.  I'm sure that in the weeks to come, POTC WILL become more profitable, from a pure dollars standpoint, that Cars is/will be.  But right NOW, Cars looks to have a bit of a lead.

Also, if you look at pretty simple ROI calculations, Cars is the clear winner, coming in at 134% ROI (before marketing).  Pirates, thus far, is at 50% ROI (before marketing).  It would have to put up another 125 million in pure profit to hit Cars ROI %.  Again, using Jim's own numbers, that would equate to another 180 to 220 million (depending on weekly breakdown) to put up the ROI that Cars did.  So, while the dollar for dollar comparison will likely end up favoring POTC, the ROI comparision isn't such a sure thing.

Jim's showing us numbers, but not ALL the numbers.  There are LOTS of numbers out there, and it's a relatively easy thing to try to find some that will support the position you've already decided to adopt, or for a whole host of other reasons.  But, when you look at all the numbers, and take in all the information, one thing is for sure:  Cars has been a very successful blockbuster, both from a fan perspective and from a business perspective.  Maybe not as huge in it's numbers as some executives wished, or some analysts "predicted" it should be, but big enough to be considered a success, for sure.  And it's merchandising has done gangbuster numbers.  The franchise is putting a nice, hefty number toward the DIS bottom line.

 POTC is also doing an amazing run at the box office, and is further filling Disney's coffers. It will very likely compete for the top grossing spot at the BO this year.  It's probably going to be Disney's most profitable, dollar for dollar, film this year. Add to all that the fact that the movie is actually GOOD and you have to be pretty happy.

All of the above can only mean very good things for the Mouse House AND those of us who are Mouse House fans, no matter how much doom and gloom others want to bring to the party.

well, at least it's nice and quiet in here today.....

One time I remember reading something about if you don't like Jim's articles, then don't read them. I guess the same would apply to the comments section....

What Jim described for film gross splits between the studio and theatres is true (gasp) - it's a rough estimation. A Spielberg movie gets more favorable terms than a Matthew Perry movie (who?), and remember, everything in Hollywood is open to negotiation. After all is said and done the studio suits sit down with the theatre suits and begin the haggling again. What theatres get to keep is dependant upon how hard they want to push. Studios can always take away future releases from a specific theatre chain - and it happens more frequently than you might think. The main muscle the theatres can use is their number of screens, and that's why you saw the building and consolidating of so many airplane hangars/movie screens in the late 90's. Rest assurred, no one's "life savings" are at stake.

So far, Cars has doubled its budget, Pirates will have a tougher time with that, so which one has the better return on investment? Which one has sold more toys? Which one has boosted attendance at the parks more? It's all apples and oranges. But that's what happens in Hollywood and most big business. It's not about actual results - it's about appearances, and how results can be tweaked for the next round of negotiations.

Cars is far from being a disappointment - but - that has to be the company stance whenever Lassetter wants to do something that costs money. "Well John, your last project didn't really meet expectations, so we can't give you that budget." Kinda like saying to M Night Shyamalan, "Well, your last project didn't do as well as The Sixth Sense,,,,", or telling Tim Allen, "Well The Shaggy Dog didn't do so well, so we can't pay you anything to make The Santa Clause 3."

Studios are more than happy to work with Lasseter, Shyamalan, etc, but they don't want to pay them anything, and if the movie is successful - it's because of the studio chief, the accountants, the producers that came to the set once, etc etc etc. Hopefully Lassetter can play these games and still remain optimistic and creative - cause it's darn near impossible.

Sleeping Beauty was a "dissapointment" for Disney when it was released.  It has since been loved by millions of children and adults over the years, Cars will follow the same path, I'm certain.

"Where in the article did it state anywhere that he spent the last week on vacation with his family?"
It didn't. If you read the comments section in Roger's recent article, Jim's ex-wife explained everything.

"You infact said jim was going to post the contest winner and his article on Tuesday.. Well, a week later and we get the article...which Jim includes more Disney bashing..."
1) Jim *did* say he was going to post it Tuesday. You were complaining on Monday, before Jim said he would post it. However, as Jim's ex pointed out, other things came up & he couldn't write the article.
2) Although this is a Pirates article, this is not *the* Pirates article. How do I know? Simply because there is no mention of the contest at all. This was a Cars article (which likely was supposed to go up last Monday). The Pirates article will mention the contest.

"According to www.the-numbers.com, the production budget on Cars was 70 million.  The production budget on POTC:DMC was 150 million."
According to BoxOfficeMojo (which may or may not include marketing budget), the budget was $120m for cars & $225m for Pirates.

"So far, Cars has made (remember, sans marketing), about 93.8 million. POTC:DMC has made, so far (again, sans marketing), about 75.7 million."
That's not a fair comparison at all. Let's put it this way (using BoM's #s), in DMC's 10th day of release, it has raked in $33.2m profits. By the 17th day, that will increase to about $100m. In Cars' 10th day, it was in the red $3m. By its 17th day, it made $26m profit.

"So far, Cars has doubled its budget, Pirates will have a tougher time with that, so which one has the better return on investment?"
Appearance is everything. Budget aside, a film that makes $60m OW & goes on to $240+m is impressive, but nowhere near the scale of a film that opened with $130m & went on to gross nearly $400m.


Also, all I hear about DCP is Toys. How about other Pirates merchandice that Jim never mentioned. What about the clothing? I'd be surprised if that isn't selling well. What about the fact that thanks to the movie, the store at the end of PotC (attraction) is now more crowded then ever?

TikiMoose hit the point that I was going to make. Cars may be running behind Wall Street's expectations but Wall Street is short sighted. Wall Street thinking lead to the stupid decisions made by Eisner and Pressler (short term gains over long term value.)

Any movie that grosses over $200 million (and I am sure it will be over $300 million worldwide) is not a failure. Further, I am sure the Cars DVD's will fly off the shelf. But more importantly, this is a timeless story. I will be watching this movie many many more times with my kids and somewhere down the line with grandkids. The characters are engaging (who would ever have thought that I could love Larry the Cable Guy so much!) Cars will be paying dividends for may years to come.

Jim you are so full of it,

You seam to forget that what makes an animated movie even more profitable is its DVD sales as well as its ability to sell merchandise.  
"CARS" merchandise alone will make this movie a very profitable one for the mouse house and future use of these characters will add to that.

CARS was never expected to make the numbers of Pirates and it was never expected to reach 200million within two weeks.  The executives clearly knew that a few weeks after its release Superman returns had the potential of hurting its box office receipts.

Ask Mke-

Just a few additions you asked for.  I also went by Box office Mojo for my production costs estimates but I did add a little more to Pirates due to Jim's July 2nd article on climbing production costs and that the making of both movies was climbing closer to 600 million.

As for the merchandising info you wanted I found this on www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cars_(film) . It gives a wonderful detailed overview of all aspects of the movie Cars.  Everyone take a look I think you'll enjoy it.  In this article it states the following on merchandising:

"On June 22, 2006 Disney Consumer Products announced that Cars merchandise broke records for retail sales based on a Disney-Pixar product, recording 10-to-1 more volume than Finding Nemo[16]. DCP reports that product expansion will take place in the fall alongside the DVD release of the film.

Estimates from the New York Daily News indicate that sales of Cars merchandise two weeks out from the release of the film amassed to $600 million USD."

So my 600 million estimate was definetely low and on the safe end as this was two weeks out from the release and really outselling Nemo.  I expect they are easily over a billion now and should add plenty over the summer and around Christmas when the dvd is released and another push is made.

By the way I like the way ask mike makes his arguments, he seems to give good facts with a reference which is helpful.

My point is simply that I loved both movies and both are highly successful and profitable making the company hundreds of millions and both will be in the top box office money makers this year.  Pirates will be one, Cars will probably end up between 3 and 5.  Disney should be and I believe are thrilled.

remember the good ol days of Jim Hill Media?

When he got an insider's look at how movies are made, how attractions are thought out and executed.

Bottom Line-

Jim, I think that you need to get off this trend of talking about what hollywood insiders are projecting about a movie. It makes you sound like an idiot, and then like you're struggling to stay afloat. WHO CARES ABOUT THE NUMBERS.

The articles on this site should say " I liked/disliked X movie. This is why"

Not "I heard from a source, who read in entertainment weekly, who reported from monkeycrap.com that... Cars should make a billion dollars in one day."

Give us backstory. Tell us how cars was made. Give us interviews with animators, and leave all the wallstree and industry stuff to those on wallstreet and in the industry. Their jobs depend on those numbers. Yours does not. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. Becauuse most of us are tired of reading crap articles like this.

I think this is a by product of Eisner leaving.  We lost a villian.  Now the Disney camp is divided in two groups.  Pro & Anti-Pixar merger/management.  There are some in the Disney community who don't like the idea of Pixar coming down to LA and telling Disney creative what to do.  They think it is stepping on the toes of people who have been there.

Honestly, I'm in the Pro-Pixar movment.  Why for? (had slipped that one in) because of what John Lasseter has said about the post nine-old men world.  He was saying how this culture arose after Walt and the Nine-Old Men where everyone was told to shut up, fall in line, and maybe one day they will have a say in something.  John was exposed to this and resented that feeling.  He took that opposite approach at Pixar.  Many of the old guard have to be feeling that it is their time and now someone else is stepping in.  That would be the anti-Pixar crowd.

Why can't we look at this summer not as disappointment, but a huge success for the house of mouse?  Two for Two on movies that surpassed $200 million.

Way to say it TikiBird 73.  I think you hit the nail on the head.  The sentiment should be TEAM DISNEY or how about team Pixney?

Disney did the same thing back in the 90's with all the animated features. After the record success of Mermaid, Beast, and Aladdin, they shifted all the release dates for future projects to summertime. That ultimately led to their decrease in the amount of money they made.

Walt had success in Fall/Dec with Animated Features.  The second golden age occured in Fall/Dec time.  Why not keep the tradition?

Tungarooaroo said:
Disney did the same thing back in the 90's with all the animated features. After the record success of Mermaid, Beast, and Aladdin, they shifted all the release dates for future projects to summertime. That ultimately led to their decrease in the amount of money they made.
---
As demonstrated by, their first summer movie, "Lion King".  ^_^
(Of course, the fact that Katzenberg using a formula on Hercules, Pocahontas and Hunchback *MIGHT* have contributed to eventually declining receipts as well...)

It wasn't because of summer, it wasn't because of Superman, and it wasn't because of the World Cup:
Cars delivered a good movie during a time when people had the chance to go see it, and we're seeing it.  And the exact same could be said of Pirates.
But since when did this become Tiger Beat Magazine, pitting our two fan-faves in a pitted rivalry Celebrity Deathmatch for our collective love?

I understand the reality of the movie business demands that a film makes back more than it cost to make it.  And obviously studio execs love it when a film's box-office take exceeds all expectations. But if a film is turning a respectable profit I really can't understand it being considered a disappointment or labeled a failure.

So, with that in mind, I would suggest to you that, although "Pirates 2" may be making money hook over fist at the box-office, it really isn't that wonderful a film. In fact, I would call it  the Big Dumb Movie of this summer. Whereas the first "Pirates" (which I saw on DVD for the first time the day before going to see its sequel) was a grand yarn with some fun characters and situations that seemed to convey the mood of the ride from which it was derived, this second venture seemed too much of a strain on its own credibility, with far too much emphasis on CG effects and gross-out visuals, further bogged down by a largely incomprehensible plot brought about by a scattergun directorial style. First they were after the compass, then the key, the chest, blah, blah,blah....with every character wanting the chest's contents for their own purposes, most of which seemed to get lost in the shuffle! After about an hour of trying to follow the plot, I just gave up.

In contrast, "Cars", which I also finally just saw this past week, turned out to be a very pleasant little surprise that exceeded my expectations. Though I still do not particularly care for the character styling, due to my own inherent cartoonist sensibilities which wanted to see more liberty taken with squash and stretch animation allowing for greater range of acting and expression, I was won over by the sweet sincerity of the story. As a kid who grew up in the 1960s, I find that I live my life more and more basking in warm nostalgia. Quite simply, "Cars" spoke to me with its delightful plot that yearned for a past when life was simpler and people were more a part of the community looking out for each other.  As Blackcauldron85 mentioned earlier, the racing theme is merely a backdrop, largely incidental to the message of the story, and therefore not something that should prohibit anyone who is not a race fan from seeing the film.

Frankly, I don't really care how much "Pirates 2" eventually plunders, as it is the gentle story of "Cars" that will remain with me for a long time to come.

All this gong back and forth is pretty funny, and each side has it's arguments.  Since most of what I have to say has already been posted in some form, I'll leave it out.  My only question is this.  Why do you keep trying to put a negative spin on Cars?  It's a modest hit, will make about the same as Monsters Inc and the Incredibles in the U.S. Box Office, and will make a killing on DVD and possible theme park tie-ins.  Just leave it at that, which will be the facts.  Does anyone think that maybe Nemo was the huge exception to the rule, sort of like Lion King?  Why use this column, with theater percentages, as a way to belittle Cars even more?  Wall Street overestimated the entire summer season, other than Pirates, so how much do they really know?

Incomprehesible Plot? Jack owed Davy Jones his soul (as Jones' let him command the Black Pearl for 13 years). Jack tries to get Davy Jones' heart so he can use it as a trade for his soul. Will wants to destroy the heart so that Jones will die & his father will be free. However, Jack doesn't want to do that because without Jones alive, no one will be able to stop the Kraken from getting him. The English want it so that they can have control over the seas (they control Jones, they control the seas).

As for the compass, that pointed to what they wanted the most. Personally, I loved DMC. I thought it contained twice the action, emotion, humor, plot & character development as the original. I'll take DMC over Black Pearl any day...but that's just my opinion.

AskMike!

"I thought it contained twice the action, emotion, humor, plot & character development as the original."

I loved the movie and it definitely had twice the action and emotion, but the one thing I missed was the humor.  I don't think it had near the humor of the first nor was it designed to.  For that reason, I prefer Black Pearl.  However, your posts are well stated and enjoy reading them as they are not hot headed rants such as your above mentioned counterpart.  

Furthermore, I guess I just read it differently that Jim is such a basher.  I will say that it is clear he didn't approve of the merger and it at times has seemed that Cars received a little bit of negativity due to that belief, but it was Jim who just days after the initial article that was writing about how good the Cars Soundtrack CD is (my son's new favorite CD).  He is reporting the facts that it fell short of expectations.  However, whoever brought up that Wall Street expectations are what led us to Eisner and Pressler nailed that one perfectly.  Both movies are good and I would imagine that Disney would take its two offerings this summer over anyone else and for that matter would take its second place finisher over anyone else's second place movie.  Just a thought.

This is the first time I have seen an article claiming that a movie that "has legs" is a bad thing. Applying this logic, Titanic must be considered a box office flop. It made more money in weeks 2 through 6 than opening weekend. In fact, its largest weekend box office take was in week 6 ($36.0 million) so the studio only got 40% of that!

What doesn't seem to be getting much press is that DMC dropped 54% from last weekend whereas Cars "plummeted" by 44%. Somehow that isn't significant?

I have yet to talk to someone in person who really liked DMC. If I were a Disney exec, I would be nervous about World's End. The box office hit was based on the merits of the first film. For those who give Rotten Tomatoes a level of importance, it is at only 53% (vs. 76% for Cars). I think the goofiness of DMC will put off a lot of the original Pirates fans (myself included).

I think Pirates 3 will do well next May.  I do believe that it will not do the numbers that Pirates 2 is doing because next May is crowded with big name movies.  Spiderman 3, Shrek 3, and Pirates 3 will all be released next may and all are some of the most successful movie franchises of all time.  I think it'll be interesting who wins this battle at the box office next year.

"During the film's opening week, the studio might take 70 to 80 percent of gross box office sales. By the fifth or sixth week, the percentage the studio takes will likely shrink to about 35 percent, said Steven Krams, president of International Cinema Equipment Co. "

I'd change Jim's spreadsheet to 80% on down to 30% and run with that instead of what he has posted.

I'm impressed with how much Cars has made on the Merchandise front.  Even my 4 year old daughter loves the Lightning Mcqueen car.

Then again I saw Pirates twice but Cars only once.  Then again I'll probably watch the Cars DVD with my daughters more than Pirates with the wife.

It is interesting to note that Jim does have it out against Cars.  He should have just let it ago a couple weeks ago.

"Applying this logic, Titanic must be considered a box office flop."
In its 1st 6 weeks of release, Titanic made (using Jim's percentages) $193m for paramount. Now you may say, "That's only $30m more than Cars made." However, that's missing the point. Using today's ticket prices, that number would rocket to $263.9m no flop using any standards.

"In fact, its largest weekend box office take was in week 6 ($36.0 million) so the studio only got 40% of that!"
Actually, its largest 3-day weekend gross came in its 2nd weekend ($35.5m). The $36m in its 5th week was from a 4-day holiday (MLK day).

"...Rotten Tomatoes..."
For a movie like Pirates, RT doesn't matter. Critics didn't like the 1st one, they don't like this one & they won't like the next one. People on the other hand did like the last one, do like this one & will more than likely like the next one.

As for Pirates 3, I think it will open around the same as DMC simply because its a 4-day weekend (Memorial Day). Now whether or not it makes as much is completely dependant on how Shrek the Third does, how much people like it & how much the competition is after it.

"It is interesting to note that Jim does have it out against Cars.  He should have just let it ago a couple weeks ago."
Jim has stated many times he has nothing against Cars. Go find proof of it and maybe I'll agree with you.

(And thanks for the comments RRapier33)

"In its 1st 6 weeks of release, Titanic made (using Jim's percentages) $193m for paramount. Now you may say, "That's only $30m more than Cars made." However, that's missing the point. Using today's ticket prices, that number would rocket to $263.9m no flop using any standards."

I wasn't really trying to compare Titanic to Cars. Just to point out that I think Jim's argument is flawed. He says that Disney is disappointed with Cars because the box office take of later weeks in a release goes more to theaters than the studios. Titanic made more money in the weeks *after* the opening release. Hence, if Jim's argument is true, the studio that produced Titanic must consider Titanic to be a disappointment.

It may be an interesting bit of trivia, but I don't agree with Jim's argument.

"Give us backstory. Tell us how cars was made. Give us interviews with animators, and leave all the wallstree and industry stuff to those on wallstreet and in the industry. Their jobs depend on those numbers. Yours does not."

Here here! I second that motion!

" I'll take DMC over Black Pearl any day...but that's just my opinion."

Phew boy, AskMike1, I think it is safe to conclude we have totally different tastes in movies. I was definitely disappointed with DMC and would take CotBP any day.

Since you are a big fan of DMC, perhaps you can give your opinion on this: Why in the world do *all* the characters want to save Jack Sparrow? I can understand Elizabeth's motivation since she regrets her betrayal to him. Will, I'm not so sure of. But what about Pintel and Ragetti? Why should they even care? In fact, did anyone else in movie even recognize that they were there? That was so bizarre to me. In fact, why did they go back Tia Dalma anyway? It was apparent that she was a dangerous woman to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Why go to her place for a boo-hoo session?

Also, I didn't really care for all the 20,000 Leagues rip-offs. The sinister ship captain with a mysterious past who plays the organ, a battle at sea with the monsterous squid/"Kraken", our protaginist being chased off the beach of an island by a bunch of cannibals, etc. I was really hoping for more orginiality. Despite all the ride references in the first film, they really had some creative elements. I wish it had worked on this picture, but I left disappointed. Maybe World's End will recapture the magic of the first...

"For a movie like Pirates, RT doesn't matter. Critics didn't like the 1st one, they don't like this one & they won't like the next one. People on the other hand did like the last one, do like this one & will more than likely like the next one."

You were so quick to point to RottenTomatoes when Cars came out, but now you discount its merits?

Why, because critics love Pixar, and so it matters more?

Let's look at RottenTomatoes for a second.

Pirates is at 53% (considered rotten).  Cars is at 76% (considered fresh, despite being well below the Pixar norm).

Let's look further now, at the users reviews.  Pirates becomes fresh, with 79%.  Cars remains fresh, with 92%.

Going just by these numbers, film-wise, it seems critics and audiences agree that Cars is simply a better movie than Pirates.

However, I really enjoyed both flicks, so whatever.  Plus, they're different movies with different goals and different fanbases, so a real comparison is not only impossible, but pointless.

I saw Pirates at the midnight screening.  It has a huge high-school aged following (which is a market that seems to go to movies fairly regularly), and seemed to hold lots of appeal for the 18-35 target audiences.  Cars' target audience skews lower, with the main audience being children and families, a group that, as I've said repeatedly, seems to be more likely to see the movie in the theatre once (if at all) and then wait for the DVD, which would be far cheaper than taking the whole family to see the movie again.  Plus, as demonstrated by comments, there's a general misconception about Cars, as people seem to think it is a racing movie for NASCAR fans, and if you don't like NASCAR, there's nothing in the movie for you, which is simply not the case.

I have to wonder, AskMike...have you seen Cars yet?

"You were so quick to point to RottenTomatoes when Cars came out, but now you discount its merits?"
There is a big difference. Before Cars, every Pixar film scored above 90% with Pixar (4 doing above 96% & 2 doing 100%). Cars was the first Pixar film that was not loved by critics. And for a studio that supposedly could do no wrong....that was wrong. Now DMC is a different story? Why for? Critics did not like Black Pearl. In general, Critics also seem to hate popcorn-flicks. There was simply no way DMC was going to get a high score on RT. But contrary to what the critics said, this movie is breaking almost every Box Office record in its path. So clearly, RT critic scores have no effect on this movie.

"Going just by these numbers, film-wise, it seems critics and audiences agree that Cars is simply a better movie than Pirates. "
No, critics and RT users think that. A mere 410 users. If you go to other sites like BoxOfficeMojo, you'll see that 981 people gave DMC an A, 298 a B, & less then a hundred each for C, D & F. Not that that is any more or less accurate. On IMDB, 42% of the people gave DMC a 10, 4000 gave it a 9 & 8. One website cannot give everyone's feelings.

"Cars' target audience skews lower, with the main audience being children and families, a group that, as I've said repeatedly, seems to be more likely to see the movie in the theatre once (if at all) and then wait for the DVD, which would be far cheaper than taking the whole family to see the movie again."
Definitely have to disagree with that. I think there is only one other demographic that sees movies more times than kids (teenage girls). Kids are the ones that drag there parents to see movies over & over & over. That is how Nemo made it to $330m. More impressively, that is how Shrek 2 made over $440m.

"I have to wonder, AskMike...have you seen Cars yet?"
Nope (and before you say, "don't judge the movie then," I have never said it was a bad movie). Do I plan to see it? Only if my family goes (and my parents pay for the ticket). Now do I plan to see PotC again in theaters? Certainly. I'm hoping my whole family goes to see it eventually.

**Avast ye mateys, Dead Man's Chest Spoilers be ahead**
"Why in the world do *all* the characters want to save Jack Sparrow?"
Elizabeth, as you said, felt guilty about setting Jack up. For all the other pirates (except for Will), remember that Jack was their captain. They were loyal to him the whole time. Also remember that Jack did come back at the end. He did save everyone by shooting the gun. As for Will, he has me a bit perplexed. Perhaps his logic is that wherever Jack is, the Davy Jones is & wherever Jones is, his father is. Another possible case is that Will wants revenge on Jack for "kissing" Elizabeth.

Now remember that with Pintel & Regetti, they are virtually good guys now. Up until the last minute, they had no clue Barbosa was alive. They are helping Jack for the same reason they've been pretty much helping him the whole 2nd half of the movie.

"Why did they go back Tia Dalma anyway?"
Where else did they have to go? They can't stay at sea as Davy Jones is still there (although Jones thinks Jack took the heart, he still knows that Will took the key). And if I remember correctly, they were on little lifeboats. The closest thing to them was Tia, so why not just go there? My thinking is that they wanted help & she is the one to help them. She appears to be very mystical, so why not go to her.

If you want frontloaded releases, all you have to do is release sequels to successful films. The fact that Pixar prides themself in original material is too bad for Disney, but maybe they should lower their expectations based on such. Pixar's always done this, and that's what they decided to buy. The summer pallette is far too crowded for 2 Pirates in a season. That's why Superman Returns has fallen off the map.

To coincide with all these predictions in the air, I'm going to bet Shrek 3 makes more money than Ratatouille next summer. Financially, Shrek 3's going to be massive and very frontloaded. But critically Ratatouille will probably smoke it and chug along to a healthy $250-300m. The problem doesn't seem to be Pixar at all, but the experts out there. There's no way something that's done as well as Cars has deserves the scrutiny it's gotten, and complaining it's not is moronic. Faults on the Mouse House.

Yeah, yeah, Jim hates Cars.  
I haven't seen it yet.  I've been really busy, okay?

I get a half-hour lecture from the man over what a good movie it is and that it's a shame I haven't taken Alice to see it.  

I intend to...when I can.  I saw Typhoon the weekend Cars opened.  Kicked ass.

"According to BoxOfficeMojo (which may or may not include marketing budget), the budget was $120m for cars & $225m for Pirates."

I shot an email off to the guys at BOM.  They do include marketing numbers in their budgets and they confirmed that Cars marketing budget  was approx 50 million, and Pirates marketing budget was approx 75 million (which, in itself, is interesting all things considered).  That further skews Jim's numbers.  It would mean Cars was showing an approximate profit of  43.8 million, and Pirates about 700k.


"That's not a fair comparison at all. Let's put it this way (using BoM's #s), in DMC's 10th day of release, it has raked in $33.2m profits. By the 17th day, that will increase to about $100m. In Cars' 10th day, it was in the red $3m. By its 17th day, it made $26m profit. "

If it's not a fair comparison, you should take it up with JH.  He's the one who perpetuated it in his article.  I say it's a very fair comparison, considering Jim's article.  And your "profit" statement is incorrect, assuming JH's numbers for contract modeling with the theaters are correct. But, in any case, I'm not surprised you think the comparison is unfair.....it doesn't support your already held opinion.

"Appearance is everything. Budget aside, a film that makes $60m OW & goes on to $240+m is impressive, but nowhere near the scale of a film that opened with $130m & went on to gross nearly $400m. "

And no one has suggested it was, or should be. Well, no one but you and Jim.  But the point is....there continues to be "Cars Bashing", at every turn, to try to justify some ill will toward Pixar or some sort of doom and gloom about who successful Cars has been.  It's a blockbuster, and those that want to look at the glass as half empty need a serious perspective adjustment on this one.

 Oh, and appearance is not everything.  Not when discussing actual business numbers, and profitability.  The bottom line is everything.  And right now, from a pure ROI standpoint and even from a pure dollars profitability standpoint, Cars is the obvious leader.  From a dollars standpoint, I'm sure that will probably change. From an ROI standpoint (which, as an investor, is just as important)?  It'll be a tough battle.

"No, critics and RT users think that. A mere 410 users. If you go to other sites like BoxOfficeMojo, you'll see that 981 people gave DMC an A, 298 a B, & less then a hundred each for C, D & F. Not that that is any more or less accurate. On IMDB, 42% of the people gave DMC a 10, 4000 gave it a 9 & 8. One website cannot give everyone's feelings. "

You don't find it interesting that YOU brought up RT when Cars came out, but no other site, but NOW, when RT is contradicting your already held opinion you feel the need to go elsewhere for information?  I know I do.

"Definitely have to disagree with that. I think there is only one other demographic that sees movies more times than kids (teenage girls). Kids are the ones that drag there parents to see movies over & over & over. That is how Nemo made it to $330m. More impressively, that is how Shrek 2 made over $440m."

Do you have a link to that particular piece of market research?  I'd be interested in reading it.  Because, quite frankly, the original assertion sounds pretty logical to me.  It's certainly how my family of 4 (soon to be 5) handles things.  In addition, with the drastic shortening of DVD lead time, it makes even more sense to me.  Now, once the DVD is "home"...I'd agree.  My kids will watch the movie until they've memorized most of the lines.  But the theaters are too expensive for us to go over and over.  Every viewing, just for admission (assuming matinee's) roughly translates into the price of the DVD (OR MORE!).  My daughter asked if we were going to see the Cars movie again and I told her we'd get it when it comes out on DVD and she could watch it as many times as she wants.  She was fine with that.  Anecdotal info, and not very compelling, to be sure.  But it wouldn't shock me to see more parents doing similar things.

The fact that Shrek 2 had a much more adult "skew" to it's appeal might have had something to do with it's increased Gross, too.

Jim,

First you think cars will have problem breaking 200 M. Now yout think its not going to bring in "The Incredibles" -sized number. As the winner of the guess-the-opening-weekend-gross-of-"Dead-Man's-Chest" contest , I know you are dead wrong about this. Cars is going to break  "The Incredibles" 's number.  After that , are you going to finally say cars is a success. BTW, when are you going to  officially announce me as the winner.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... the DVD market is hurting the Box Office.  Wait, I know what you're going to say... DMC $135 million opening weekend.  Well, 1. It had a built in audience.  People were waiting for this movie.  2. DMC had a wide demographic.  The teenagers, twentysomethings, and everyone else who doesn't have to pay $20-$50 to take their family to the movies.  That group can make multiple return trips that a family of 4 or 5 can't.  I pay $14 for a ticket (student) and drinks/popcorn.  I can afford return tips when I can find the time.  3. pilferk summed up the situation the best.  DVDs are the easier route to go now a days.

This never occured in the 80's and most of the 90's.  VHS usually came out a year and a half after the movie was released.  Then a tape cost $80 to purchase which meant you had to rent from places like Blockbuster for a while until the VHS was released for $20.  Now, releases are so fast, people usually wait 3 to 6 months for a $20 DVD.

Also, I've also found that as I grow older (Mid-Twenties) I have less and less time to see movies than when I was a teenager.  That is why I've seen X-Men once, Cars twice (once was a free screening), superman once, POTC once.  I would like to see all of these movies again, but I think X-Men and Superman may wait for DVD.  I will see Pirates one more time, but I don't know if I have time to see another showing of Cars.

"My daughter asked if we were going to see the Cars movie again and I told her we'd get it when it comes out on DVD and she could watch it as many times as she wants.  She was fine with that.  Anecdotal info, and not very compelling, to be sure.  But it wouldn't shock me to see more parents doing similar things."

As a parent, this is my rule of thumb as well.  Why drop $50 bucks a crack to repeat a movie-going experience for my family when I can get the DVD (and replay it endlessly) for $20-24 in a few months?

AskMike:

You are very well spoken and you don't get emotional often, but it is fairly obvious from the comment you made earlier that you at least are biased against the success of Cars.

"I really want this movie to underperform (not bomb, just underperform) to shove it in Lasseter's face that Pixar isn't perfect. "
taken from here: http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2006/06/12/2905.aspx#comments

So really we should take all of your defense of Jim's "objective analysis" with a saltlick, you've already declared your intentions towards this movie.

Also, you said that "critics" didn't like the first Pirates either, but it got a FRESH rating at RT, 79%, compared to DMC's Rotten rating. By the way, I don't agree with them, I liked them both a lot, maybe the first one a little better. But just wanted to point out that while you make a good argument, you do play fast with the numbers to suit your point.

Really you are missing out on a great movie by being so biased by Cars. I was very afraid I would hate this movie. I hate NASCAR, I thought the trailers looked awful, I feared that Mater would be the Jar Jar Binks of Pixar.

But it's excellent, it really is! I was biased against it and it won me over. I've seen it twice, each time with my 6 year old girl and 3 year old boy and they loved it too.
Give it a chance. Cars ALONE (plus the cash reserves at Pixar) probably makes the expensive merger worth it. Disney lives or dies based on the quality of it's characters, and they just created at least 3 more that people love (my daughter loves Sally and Mater, my son loves Lightning McQueen), that will make the kids faces light up when they visit Disneyland or Disney World.

By the way, I like Jim and I like his site, but he does seem to have a little bias against Cars. At this point I think it's more professional pride, like "I stand by my argument." But I think we'd all give our left lug nuts to be a part of a project that was as successful critically, popularly, artistically, and financially as CARS.

It's amazing to me how gullible you guys are.  Why argue about some bias against "Cars", when THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THIS ARTICLE IS GARBAGE!  Jim's claims about how the percentage split of the gross between the theater chains and the studio are WRONG!  It's all BS.  Disney doesn't get 90% of the first week, 80% of the second, and so forth.  They pretty much split with the theaters.  So let's get back to reality, and out of the alternate universe where "Cars" is the cause of global warming.

Years ago George Lucas extorted the theater chains into accepting a plan like the one Jim describes as standard. They had to go along to get the new Star Wars movie.  The result was that a couple of theater chains went bankrupt, and the ones that didn't cheated the hell out of ol' George (by selling tickets to other movies to people going to see Ep. 1).  Everybody wised up quick, especially the theaters, and those deals disappeared.

The standard studio/theater split is 55-45.  From week one.  Special deals, giving more to the studio, are rare, and no studio is ever going to get 90% of the first week again.  Cuz the popcorn just ain't that expensive to make up the difference.

As I look over the last couple of weeks of articles here on JHM I am reminded of the following lines from Nathan Lane's character, Pseudolus, in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum":

"First, the house of Erronius - a befuddled old man abroad now in search of his children, stolen in infancy by pirates. Second, the house of Lycus - a buyer and seller of the flesh of beautiful women. That's for those of you who have absolutely no interest in pirates!"

Jim, ol' buddy, enough with the pirates articles already - bring on the beautiful women!!!
(And step lively there, Jim lad - ARRRRH!)

This article says otherwise:
http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/smbusiness/q_movies/

It supports Jim's proposed breakdown, although the numbers are a little different.

Yeah ask Mikes statement about critics not liking the first Pirate's is a bit wrong because it was 79% fresh with critics and 94% fresh with users as compared with Pirates 2 being 53% with critics and 79% with users.  So Pirates 2 fall in freshness from the first (26%) was actually more than Car's (76%) to the other Pixar movies (on average 21%).

To be completely honest though a believe both films had lower reviews because of higher than normal expectations.  Nobody expected Pirates 1 to be that good after such movies as The Country Bears.  So the movie turned out to be a very pleasant surprise and overall is a very good movie.  I feel the 2nd movie is also very good but with much higher expectations some people felt that it wasn't as good as the first.

The same thing happened with Cars.  Because of past Pixar movies and success' everyone expects something out of this world amazing and there exists a much higher level of expectation.  Cars is a great movie also but lacks some of the wow factors of the latest Pixar movies such as the amazing action in the Incredibles and the amazing underwater environment of Nemo.

In closing and as a Disney maniac I hate to see the divsion in the company and here on the web of pixar vs. disney.  People they are one company now and I feel more now than ever they are trying to make quality, fun, family, films.  The company and public should feel fortunate for the state of the company right now and I say let's cheer them on and support them.  The adding of Pixar was great move and was a good deal.  The merchandising alone of the Pixar charatacters will pay itself off probably in the next 5 years.  Let's remember John Lassiter started with Disney and loves the company and wants to help them produce quality movies.

Let's remember Walt's thinking.  Put in the quality, story, and money into the project and people will recognize how good it is and come back again and again.

Sorry that I went off but just my feelings.

Wall Street doesn't know best, so who the crap cares what THEY think? As long as both Cars and Pirates are making a lot of money, I don't see the problem. Just as long as Disney puts all that money to something useful. (And by "useful", I mean something besides cheapquels with slightly higher budgets than before, or lame TV spin-offs).

"And your "profit" statement is incorrect, assuming JH's numbers for contract modeling with the theaters are correct."
Okay, I messed up with those numbers, so here are the real ones (which still show you weren't doing a fair comparison). Now for Pirates week 2, I assumed each of the 4 weekdays gross 7m (which should be accurate since it made $7.8m today).

PIRATES
Wk1: 196  * 90% = 176.4m
Wk2: 90.3 * 80% = 72.24m
________________________
248.68 - 225= $23.64m (Profit Disney gets after 2 weeks)

CARS
Wk1: 93 * 90% = 83.7
Wk2: 58 * 80% = 46.4
________________________
130.1 - 120 = $10.1m (Profit Disney gets after 2 weeks)

What made your numbers unfair is that you based Cars' profit on 38 days at the box office while you based Pirates' on only 10 days. And you know, its not a good sign that Pirates' profit in 10 days is pretty much what Cars is in 38 days.

"To try to justify some ill will toward Pixar"
I have no ill will towards Pixar. Point is, Cars isn't doing as well as it could have done.

"You don't find it interesting that YOU brought up RT when Cars came out, but no other site, but NOW, when RT is contradicting your already held opinion you feel the need to go elsewhere for information?"
I brang up RT for the critic reviews. Even though I'm not fond of their "its good or its bad" ratings, it has more critics compiled then any other site. As for user reviews, no site (whether it be 410 voters on RT or 25,000 voters on imdb) will ever have enough votes to be accurate. The only accurate marker of how people like the movie is in the box office (especially after the opening weekend).

"The bottom line is everything.  And right now, from a pure ROI standpoint and even from a pure dollars profitability standpoint, Cars is the obvious leader."
Not using Jims numbers (because they would balance it in favor of Pirates), PotC will end domestically with over $150m of profit. Cars will end with at most, 130-140m. And being that Pirates is breaking all sorts of records overseas, those numbers will seperate even more once you include international totals.

"Do you have a link to that particular piece of market research?"
Do you have research to say its not? Like you, I based my opinion soley on what I observe. I'm not saying I'm right, its just what I have seen.

"BTW, when are you going to  officially announce me as the winner."
Maybe when he finshes the Star Tours series & gives out the Disneyland CDs. :)

"So really we should take all of your defense of Jim's "objective analysis" with a saltlick, you've already declared your intentions towards this movie."
When I wrote that statement, I was very angry at Lasseter & the Pixerization of Disney. At the time I wrote this, WDW announced that its next 3 attractions would all be Pixar-themed (and the rumor mill points to even more Pixar attractions). Jim recently wrote the article that Lasseter wanted to give all films the Pixar seal of approval. Jim reported that Lasseter wanted many of the plot points changed of Meet the Robinsons because it wasn't like a Pixar movie. So yes, I did want this movie to underperform.

However, what I have stated here are facts. I don't say "this movie bombed" because it didn't. I don't say "it's probably a bad movie" because I haven't seen it. I say what I see, and for whatever I can, I back it with evidence. (And just as a note, I have nothing against Pixar, I just don't like the Pixerfication of Disney).

"Really you are missing out on a great movie by being so biased by Cars."
I am not biased against Cars. The fact I have not seen it yet is because I'd rather spend my 7 bucks on seeing DMC again. Like I said, if my family went & my parents pay for the ticket, I'll be more than happy to see it. Otherwise, I'll just wait to see it on DVD.

"By the way, I like Jim and I like his site, but he does seem to have a little bias against Cars."
Look, FabShelly (aka the "evil ex-wife") has stated that Jim loved the movie. What more evidence do you need that he has nothing against it.

Well, turns out a lot of people got to replying to your replies before I could get to it, and basically said what I would say.  A few thoughts:

//If you go to other sites like BoxOfficeMojo, you'll see that 981 people gave DMC an A, 298 a B, & less then a hundred each for C, D & F//

If you look at it percentage wise (which is the only fair way to do it since DMC has had more reviews than Cars- which is probably a natural result of the general audience breakdowns for the flicks), both movies got a B+.  Cars had a higher percentage of A's, with 67.9% vs. 65.1%, DMC had a slightly higher percentage of B's with 20.2% vs. 20.0%, and DMC had a higher percentage of C's, D's, and F's, with a combined total of 14.7% vs. 12.1%.

In terms of IMDb, Cars has an average of 7.7/10, DMC has an average of 7.5/10, and CBP has an average of 8.0/10.

I really don't know what all this proves, but I figured I'd flesh out the numbers you threw out there.

//I don't say "it's probably a bad movie" because I haven't seen it.//

While you might not flat out say that, you certainly imply that you feel that way (and hold more stock in RottenTomatoes than you'll admit here) when you said:
"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?" in this thread:
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2006/06/20/3138.aspx#comments
in response to someone saying "I loved it.  The characters, story, and animation are excellent."

I mean, COME ON!  You used Rotten Tomatoes to try to tell someone that Cars (a movie you haven't seen) is not a good movie.

In the comments for this article:
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2006/06/12/2905.aspx
while once again propping up Rotten Tomatoes as proof that cars wasn't as good as the other Pixar flicks, you said "A little consistancy is needed people."

And I agree.  But instead of talking about whether a flick should be compared to Nemo and Incredibles, I'd rather see some consistancy in your opinion towards Rotten Tomatoes.

"I really don't know what all this proves, but I figured I'd flesh out the numbers you threw out there. "
Exactly, it proves nothing. What I'm saying is that for what the people think, there will never be a good website because not everyone is going to vote. But if you are going to use a website, at least use one with a lot of votes (like IMDB). But at the end of the day, even that doesn't matter. On IMDB, Munich got the same amount of votes as DMC did & like Cars got a 7.7. But would you say that was a more popular film than DMC? No. DMC already has 5 times as much as Munich made.

"I mean, COME ON!  You used Rotten Tomatoes to try to tell someone that Cars (a movie you haven't seen) is not a good movie."
Did I say the movie was bad? No. I was pointing out that unlike Pixar's other films, Cars has not been a universally loved movie. Once I see the film, I promise I will post here whether or not I liked it. But until then, I will *not* call the movie good or bad.

"In the comments for this article, while once again propping up Rotten Tomatoes as proof that cars wasn't as good as the other Pixar flicks."
Again, not the point of what I said. I was pointing out the fact that whenever Disney makes a movie, almost everyone instantly compares it to Finding Nemo & The Incredibles. The second Pixar makes a film that does somewhat worse, comparing it to Nemo or Incredibles is voodoo.

"I'd rather see some consistancy in your opinion towards Rotten Tomatoes."
You want my opinion on RT towards ANY film? Here it is:

Critics Reviews: If you believe in the critics' reviews, RT is the best place. Although I'm not a fan of their black & white system, it has more reviews then any other site I've seen. Now personally, the only critics I trust are Statler & Waldorf. Other then that, I don't listen to critics. Critics think Cars & Pirates are bad? I really don't care. Unless the critic is a clone of me, they will always have differing opinions.

User Reviews: RT is not a good place for User Reviews. There simply aren't enough users to give ratings. IMDB.com is probably the best place for user ratings/reviews....but even they aren't the perfect source considering they only scratch the surface of a movie's audience.

Cars: Critics thought it was okay. Not as good as Pixar's past efforts, but certainly not bad. Users seem to agree with the critics, if anything, liking it more, giving it about a B/B+.

Pirates2: Critics are split with this one. Some think its very good some think its very bad. Many also did not like the 1st one. Users seem to like it more then the critics. Like with Cars, they seem to give the movie a B/B+.

//Did I say the movie was bad? No. I was pointing out that unlike Pixar's other films, Cars has not been a universally loved movie.//

Initial Statement, quoted by you in your comment:
//I loved it.  The characters, story, and animation are excellent.//

Your Response TO THAT QUOTE, in its entirety:
//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."//

In the context of quoting someone saying that they loved the film, praising various aspects of it, you replied with what amounted to a flippant comment insulting the film, using the critics reviews to say that, contrary to the poster's belief, the movie isn't good.  In that comment, you were holding it on its own (and not in relation to the other Pixar films), and pointing to the 76% as if Cars is representative of an artistic failure for Pixar (ignoring the fact that 76% is considered "Certified Fresh").  You used those quotes as your counter for someone who saw the film and loved it, letting the critics speak for you instead of seeing the film and speaking for yourself.

You have not been saying the words "Cars is bad," but to pretend you've never badmouthed the film is baffling.  You've used your outside sources (using numbers and quotes) to try to make the opinion of a person who has seen the film seem less valid.  You might avoid saying "Cars is bad," but your opinion has been made clear in the way you've responded to people.

askmike1 said: " 'I mean, COME ON!  You used Rotten Tomatoes to try to tell someone that Cars (a movie you haven't seen) is not a good movie.'
Did I say the movie was bad? No. I was pointing out that unlike Pixar's other films, Cars has not been a universally loved movie."

Right, cause Rotten Tomatoes is the end all to be all of telling us what is universally loved.  It's telling me that the Cars characters aren't being loved by as many kids as other Pixar movies.  The toys aren't flying off the shelf and are very easy to find like the Pirates figures.  The only characters I have seen on the barebones racks have been McQueen, Mater, and only one Doc Hudson.  I'm sure Disney/Mattel flooded the market with McQueen and Mater.

Honestly askmike1, I don't know why you would be against the Pixarification of Disney.  Disney was not Disney for the longest time.  Here comes a group that made movies the exact same way Walt and the Nine-Old men used to make movies.  Now they are trying to bring that back to Disney.  Do you know if the plot points of Meet the Robinsons need Pixar's help?  Chicken Little could have used help.

As for the Pixar rides, I'm sure that Iger had nothing to do with greenlighting that.  Besides, maybe now Lasseter and company can actually influence good Pixar rides instead of A bug's land at DCA.  The Pixarification is good for Disney.  Read a few blogs by Pixar employees who want Disney to change back to Disney.

I sort of agree with your comment about comparing Disney's (and other studios as well) movies to Finding Nemo and the Incredibles.  Pixar should be held to the same status.  Still, I personally think the Incredibles is the greast movie I have ever seen.  That's even from someone who knows the reasons why Citizen Kane and Casablanca are considered the two greatest movies of all time.  I hold the Incredibles seperate from all other movies and do not judge my expectations of a movie against the Incredibles.  I never expected Cars to be greater than the Incredibles.

I didn't even do this with my thoughts on Chicken Little... They used real Indiana Jones video instead of animating Indy as an animal.  A golden retriever makes the most sense... get it ;) That was the point when I knew I could not compare that movie to the Incredibles did because they didn't even take the time to make Indy apart of their world.  I won't even go into the story problems of the Dad and Chicken Little.  At the same time, Chicken Little had its moments.  Fish out of water was a great character.  I wished they continued more with him communicating only through movie references.  The King Kong reference was hilarious.  Out of context with the story, but hilarious.

I never expected Chicken Little to be better than the Incredibles.  I didn't expect Cars to be better than the Incredibles.  Cars is a great movie with great characters that will be played for years to come.  It's going to make the same money as most of the other Pixar movies.  I, in no way, see cars as a disappointment.

Tikibird is right.  Disney started using all the Pixar movies they could as attractions ect. before they bought Pixar and Lassiter came on board.  Buzz Lightyear, It's Tough to Be a Bug, Bug's Life Land, Monsters Inc., and the Finding Nemo Subs were all at least in the planning stages before Pixar officially came on board.  The fact is Disney hasn't had any real memorable animated characters over the last few years to base a lot on.

I agree though that I would also like to see some new original storylines for the Parks though similar to Pirates and the Haunted Mansion.  Overall though if the ride is a quality fun ride that has good repeat value I'll be happy.

Expedition Everest is based on a whole new storyline, and that cost a bundle. They could have made it based on the Yeti from Monsters Inc (I'm glad they didn't).

Mission Space is not Pixar based either. Really the last 2 most expensive Florida attractions had nothing to do with Pixar. Neither did Stitch's Great Escape.

I want Narnia built in Animal Kingdom.

To anyone who doubts my previous post that the studios get about 55% and the theater owners 45% of the box office, check out the prospectus from 2002 for Regal Entertainment (the largest theater chain at the time):

http://sec.edgar-online.com/2002/04/19/0000912057-02-015824/Section10.asp

Here's a 2005 article about a lawsuit that Mel Gibson had to file to get his 55% from "Passion of the Christ" (note that in the article the 55-45 split is called "studio terms" -- it's called that because it's the industry standard):

http://au.news.yahoo.com/040608/11/pd5u.html

Or you could ignore the above info, which is all required to be accurate, and use as a reference an article in which the quoted expert is someone who isn't in either the production/distribution or theater sides of the business (he's a theater equipment supplier).

There is a lot of nonsense on the web (I'm surprised somebody didn't quote the site that claims with great certainty that the studios get 96% of the gross for the entire run of a picture, or the one that claims the studios frequently get 100% of the gross).  When it comes to Hollywood economics, Jim has added to the nonsense with this article.  If you don't believe the information I linked, use some logic: it doesn't matter how expensive the popcorn is, there's no way any theater chain could stay in business giving away the vast majority of the ticket prices.

Do some proper research folks -- the information is out there.  And let's put to rest the idea that Cars isn't making staggering boatloads of money for Disney.

I don't know what I find more grating here: the site's constant attacks and schadenfreude regarding Lassetter and Pixar, or that  "40 Year Old Virgin" headshot of Ask Mike there, always accompanying a post about what a waste it was for Disney to ever meet Pixar.  I haven't been here in weeks because of this, and coming back to the same old sht articles attacking Pixar.  Really, this only rankles me because it's so obviously a personal thing with this site, and it makes me have to say a final 'Sayonara' to Jim Hill Media.

You have to know that this has become the raving senile old man of Disney sites.  It's like Ain't It Cool News' forums, but at least they blindly hate everything, making that, pathetically, a more well-rounded site to read.

Good bye.

Look automatic daddy, if you can't understand that Jim has NOTHING against Pixar or Cars, then all I have to say is good riddens. It has already been very clear about that (even his ex-wife says he doesn't). And if you don't know that my avatar is Bob Iger, I don't know what to say. No where have I EVER said that Disney should never have met Pixar. So either actually read the posts, or feel free to leave.

Yes, a probee to posting, however not to the personalitiies represented on these posts.  Followed the boards for many, many months now.

There are times that you are fully supportive of Jim's standpoint Askmike1, but on this one I completely disagree and felt compelled to join the conversation because you regularly present such intellegent arguements (I don't want to come out of the gate in a tet a tet relationship, but "good riddens"?)

Personally, wanting all Disney product (Pixar, BVHV, BVP, etc.) to do well, why would we welcome an article heralding the success of one of Disney's films only to compare it to the (non) success of another - which by any other account, as you point out, is relatively successful?

Please don't ask people to leave, your passionate words and opinions have helped inspire me to join this group and share my own.

I said "good riddens" because A) I'm sick of all this Jim hates Cars crap when all evidence points to that he doesn't and B) automatic daddy said, "it makes me have to say a final 'Sayonara' to JHM." Truth is that when Jim isn't writing about things that almost happened, he writes about things that actually are happening. Now Jim could have made an article saying that Cars was doing outstanding at the box office, surpassing every expectation but that would not have been entirely true. If something slightly disappointing happens, he is going to write an article about how it was slightly disappointing.

And the truth is that if you don't compare it to anything else (ie, pretend there were no other Pixar movies before this), it is doing very well at the BO. This weekend will add another $5-6m, bringing its total to just around $230m.

But did I mean good riddens? Why not? Not only did he put words in my mouth (I never said it was a waste for Disney to meet Pixar) & call Jim's articles "sht articles attacking Pixar" (they are critical but come far from attacking them), he attacked this site, calling it the "raving senile old man of Disney sites" and pathetic because he thinks AICN is better. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Jim, but there is plenty wrong with attacking him & this site. I don't think I'd ever ask someone to leave, but since he already stated he's leaving, just think of it as my not-so-nice "farewell." :)

Let's pretend there are no other Pixar films?...there are no other MGM films, Paramount films, Columbia films...It is a shame all films produced after inital blockbusters were disappointments..."What have you done? What a world, what a world"...

"Of course, that initial feeling of disappointment eventually gave way to muted optimism when "Superman Returns" turned out to be such a surprisingly weak performer. This meant that "Cars" actually caught a break, allowing this new animated feature to enjoy an extra week or so of fairly strong ticket sales. Which then boosted the film's box office."

"Caught a break?"  Give ME a break.  Can we not say that this film stands on its own?

Oh, and my point was wish him good riddance not riddens (unless that's something new)

Good Lord, I used to look forward to reading the comments after the article, because usually they added some insight or additional fun comments that I enjoyed.  I can't wade through the lengthy amount of b!tching going on here any more.  Why are we fighting?

Returning for just a bit to this article to address askmike:

"I have no ill will towards Pixar. Point is, Cars isn't doing as well as it could have done."

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

That sounds like ill will, to me.  Sounds like an agenda, too.

Besides which, your supporting statement is completely non-sensical.  What does "not doing as well as it could have done" mean?  Do you mean is "not as well as some people predicted it would"?  Or "not as well as I would have liked it to have done"? Because, in the context of a movie, your statement makes zero sense.  You're implying the movie has some sort of "potential" it can harness to do better.

"What made your numbers unfair is that you based Cars' profit on 38 days at the box office while you based Pirates' on only 10 days. And you know, its not a good sign that Pirates' profit in 10 days is pretty much what Cars is in 38 days"

Again, I'll say it.  If you trully think the comparison is unfair, you should take it up with JH.  He's the one who made it, initially, and it's the entire point of his article.  Within the context of his article, and commenting on it, it is eminently fair.

"Not using Jims numbers (because they would balance it in favor of Pirates), PotC will end domestically with over $150m of profit. Cars will end with at most, 130-140m. And being that Pirates is breaking all sorts of records overseas, those numbers will seperate even more once you include international totals."

Yes, using Jim's numbers.  And Cars is STILL ahead, on a pure ROI comparison, today using those numbers.  ROI is not a dollars to dollars comparison.  To use YOUR numbers above, PoTC would end at about a 66% ROI (using BO Mojo's production budget) and Cars would end at a 112% ROI.  Using JH's numbers, from oh so long ago, POTC was showing, at the time,  < .4% ROI, while Cars was at 31% ROI. Again, dollars to dollars PoTC will probably win out, as I said in previous posts.

And if "The Truth's" numbers are completely correct, and are the only revenue sharing/revenue model in place for the studios (which I find tough to swallow because no studio would make money, but there is evidenct to support them)....PoTC has yet to turn a profit and Cars has only JUST turned one.

I finally had a chance to see Cars today and as I said, this is what I thought of it. Going into it, I had an open mind and expected a good movie (being that I've heard mostly good things about it from people). What I saw was a mediocre (at best) movie. The first third was boring as hell, the 2nd third was decent and the last third was predictable beyond all reason.

Perhaps if they eliminated the racing aspect and kept it as a big-city car learning the slow road type movie, it would have been semi-decent but as it stands it simply wasn't imo. Not even the stunning animation could help this movie. Although the setting was simply beautiful (and perhaps the most realistic animation I've ever seen), the character design was horrible. This was also overly-niche. The hillbilly theme was taken too far and I don't think there was one non-car-related joke.

1) I only found two characters to have any depth to them, Sally & Doc (unfortunately, Doc's storyline became too predictable near the end). Luigi was also very funny. I didn't hate Mater but I think removing him wouldn't have affected the story at all. Ratzenberger was overused in this movie & the hippie/army-jeep thing got old fast. Lightning McQueen himself was overly generic & overly predicatable.

2) Pixar gets away with murder. Disney inserts a pop-song here and there everyone b**ches about it. Pixar inserts only pop-songs and everyone loves it. In addition, Cars had almost as much modern/Shrek-like jokes as Shrek itself. Also, I don't see anyone complaining about the overly immature tractor jokes and yet one Disney character burps and everyone's in a frenzy. Humor & music-wise, this is the worst Pixar movie in my opinion.

3) Rated G????? Give me a break! "I'm in hillbilly hell" and "My brother is lit" alone should have warrented a PG. Someone please tell me how Home on the Range gets a PG and this gets a G? Again, Pixar gets away with murder

*Spoilers in this paragraph*
4) As I've said before, the story-line itself was overly predicatable. Did anyone honestly not think Doc would be there at the end? Did anyone think Lightning wouldn't need to use the "turn right to go left" trick to save his race? Did anyone think Lightning wouldn't come back to Radiator springs? Did anyone think he would actually finish the race? I mean, all films have some predictablity to it (especially in Incredibles with the cape thing), but this was more predictable then any movie I remember seeing.
*End of Spoilers*

So my honest review is that I think it is better to spend your 8 bucks on Monster House. It is a MUCH better movie and the storyline is so much better. Or if you haven't seen it yet, go see Dead Man's Chest. And yes, this review was completely honest without any bias or major prejudgments.

Now, just about some non-movie portions of the showing, I thought One Man Band was much better than Incredibles' Boundin'. Also, I thought the credits portion was hysterical. Those 5 minutes were better then the entire movie (my favorite was the Toy Story one). As for the trailers, Ant Bully looks like A Bugs Life on drugs, Open Season reaks of Dreamworks, How to Eat a Fried Worm looks pointless & Flicker (or something like that) looks extremely boring. The two "saving grace" trailers were Meet the Robinsons (which looks very funny & very 'Disney') and Ratatouille (which looks to be much better than this movie).


"That sounds like ill will, to me.  Sounds like an agenda, too."
Again, I have nothing against Pixar. If you look at that quote carefully, you'll see it's Lasseter I'm not a huge fan of.


"If you trully think the comparison is unfair, you should take it up with JH."
I don't care about what Jim said, that's not what I'm talking about. Saying that Cars has more profit in 6 weeks then Pirates had in 2 is just not fair (although by now, any way you spin it, Pirates is making more money).


On a side (but somehow on-topic) note, Cars has raced to become the 2nd Biggest Film of the Year (surpassing X-Men). For the first time, Cars is also out of the top 10 (this week). Presuming Cars ends at $250m (and it remains the number 2 film of the year), this will be the first time since 2000 that the 2nd biggest movie made $260m or less. This would also mark only the 2nd time in 6 years where the 2nd biggest movie made under $300m (last year being the other year).

askmike1,
The spolier alerts were not necessary.  We've all seen it already...weeks ago.  We've moved on.

Believe it or not, there are people here who haven't seen it yet.

Nope.  We were all waiting on you.

Anybody else who hasn't seen Cars yet?  Anyone at all?

&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