Wow...It's like the Cliffs Notes version of the past few months' worth of stories here at JHM.

"I'm not saying Cars is a failure, but here's how Cars failed!"

That is, of course, a paraphrase.

But seriously, the film market has obviously changed; theatrical grosses are merely a slice of the pie, with DVDs and merchandising also representing large slices of the same pie.  I can't help but think that, when those figures can be factored in, Cars will be more successful than it's been made to appear.

....Oh, and if it doesn't play well on airlines three months from now, Jim, you will be sure and TELL us, won't you?  >_<

Cars was a decent film, it had ridiculously amazing production value and a look only surpassed perhaps by Nemo. Even the computer animation students at my new media/film school said "wow, that movie looks really, really good!"

The problem, perhaps, is that Cars has been like the child caught in the middle of two uncertain parents- Disney and Pixar, and now that they are back together things are decent, but the damage left (here in the form of diminished overseas box office) will likely not get any better.

The thing I am holding my breath on is whether or not Disney plans to allow Lassetter, Andy Stanton and Brad Bird (and the rest of the extremely creative and talented Pixar team) to do what they do best, or whether, as what we have seen with Cars, they will interfere and try and put ideas of earnings for the mouse into the Pixar teams' heads.

I think the way to fix Pixar is to let Pixar do what Pixar does best- make great, creative, original and remarkably entertaining family entertainment- lets face it, something the Disney company hasn't been known for in a very long time.

Every single movie studio in town would love to be saddled with the "disappointment" that is "Cars",  stuck with the "overpriced" Pixar, and forced to work with the "scandalous" Lasseter and Catmull.

"Disappointing" would be this weekend's "Step Up" - it cost $12 mill to make, and looks like it will end up grossing $21 mill this opening weekend - but it grossed far less than Buena Vista's last release, Pirates 2 - so it must be a disappointment. If you're going to compare Pixar releases to Pixar releases....

If you want to talk scandalous stock transactions - let's all look at Mr Eisner. During several years of his tenure, the Company had lousy results and fired legions of employees, but he still got his massive stock bonuses.

"... It should have opened a little bigger, and it should have lasted a little longer." This is the best quote we could find - from an attorney. Why don't we ask a plumber, a waitress, and a pet shop attendant while we're at it? This quote is also true of every movie that's ever been released for the past 100-some years.

No stockholder should ever allow Bob Iger to just "kick back" and receive his salary and bonuses, but Pixar is far from his biggest or most challenging problem. Long after Pirates 3 is released, and Disney Co is trying to figure out what to exploit next(bunnies, dragons, Santa Clause 6, Bambi 4) , Pixar will still be churning out money-making family-friendly films - most importantly, based on new ideas - that will last for generations.              What an awful problem to have.

I think that Jim has been right about a lot of what he's been publishing here about Cars' performance. He's not generally saying that Cars performed poorly, but he is pointing out that the investment community's unrealistic expectation that Pixar was going to hit a grand-slam, topping all that came before, is going to characterize it as something less than a glowing success. I don't think with the $7 billion that Disney paid for Pixar that anything less than "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" performance was going to please them.  It's difficult to imagine that the number 2 grossing movie of the year so far, with little coming from here on to overtake it for that position, to be characterized as a disappointment. I'll have to say, if you look at the numbers there are bigger disappointments out there this summer. Superman Returns is just one signifigant underperformer and don't think there won't be reprecussions over at Warner with the money they spent on that film.
    I don't think there's any way that Disney/Pixar comes out of this unscathed because they, with the purchase price paid for Pixar, set the bar way to high for themselves with the financial community and they are going to take some lumps for it. I think the aquisition was still a good move in the long run. Even with the gorilla-math Hollywood uses Cars will ultimately still be profitable.
    I live in Vegas, and the casinos open with all eyes looking for profitibility over building and opening costs in three months. Anything less is seen as a disaster. It's the same thing Wall Street is looking for in the Disney/Pixar deal: instant profitability. Fortunately, Wall Street has a short attention span. Bob Iger might not last the storm, but the deal will be profitable, slowly.
    I don't think that any amount of DVD sales are going to repair Cars being viewed as an underperformer though. If I recall correctly, The Incredibles was seen as kind of an underperformer on DVD. It didn't sell the ridiculous amount of copies that the investment community/retailers expected. I remember a reading a large article about this from a home video publication.
    Oh well, we'll only have to put up with the beating Cars is taking for a few more months and then it should be on to the next dead horse. I, for one, can say that I really enjoyed the film both times I saw it and look forward to bringing it home when it comes on dvd.

Ah Jim-

Last week it was rip on Pirates and how it isn't making Disney money due to production and marketing costs and this week we're back to how Pirates is amazing and making tons of money.

Once again Jim's back on his "Cars is a disapointment" kick.  He states that Disney may have overpaid for Pixar again ect.  Once again he's trying to stir the pot.  I again ask everyone to look and see how many hits and comments these articles about "Cars is a disapointment" and the "Pirates isn't the money maker you think"  get compared to his regular articles.  The man is good.  He stirs the pot well and knows how to rile up Disney fans while attracting more hits and comments to his web site.  However, I continue to believe that he will kill off most of his audience if he continues writing half factual stuff and flip flopping on his opinion.

Here's a prime example in less than a week:
This is from Jim's "175 million? 200 million?" ect. article about Pirates 2 talking about its box office take.
"Which you'd think would be the cause of great celebration at the Mouse House. But instead ... Well, what I've been hearing is that the mood inside the Team Disney Burbank building is actually quite somber. That -- thanks to the high cost of producing two sequels to "Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl" back-to-back as well as the somewhat lackluster response to "Dead Man's Chest" merchandise -- it's now looking like it might be a couple of years before the Black Pearl finally sails into the black."

Today in this article the mood is:
"Well, as it turns out, Iger was dead right about "Dead Man's Chest." That Gore Verbinski film started out strong and continues to be a phenomenon."
and
"Like I said earlier, this is not how Bob Iger originally thought that he'd be spending August of 2006. Instead of getting the chance to just sit back & enjoy "Dead Man's Chest" 's extraordinary grosses, Disney's new CEO now finds himself having to do damage control on the Pixar situation."

Man a lot changes in less than a week Jim.  Now Disney should be happy because the money if flowing in.

Jim again is talking about "Cars" in terms of profits but again he forgets to state all the facts.  Yes, we understand how its done at the box office, but again the details of the amazing amount of merchandise sold is forgotten and people if you know merchandising and follow it you'll find out that the Cars stuff is flying off the shelves and so far is  set to outsell the other Pixar.  Even if Pixar movies continue to gross around what Cars did the merchandising alone will pay for the Pixar acquistion in proabably less than a decade.

As Jim said "Okay. I know. It may weird to be describing the year's second highest grossing film (to date) as a disappointment. But let's remember that we're not talking about the real world here, folks. But -- rather -- the investment community. Where initial expectations & box office projections typically trump real world results."

Yes Jim we are talking about the 2nd highest grossing film of the year.  That's great news especially considering a lot of other CGI films haven't done anything even close to these numbers this year.  And as for the real world hey that's the one I live in and would like to talk about.

Disney needs to *seriously* reconsider its schedule for next year.  First, there's MEET THE ROBINSONS going against TMNT.  Then, there's RATATOUILLE going against TRANSFORMERS and LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD.

ComingSoon.com recently had a poll asking readers what summer 2007 release they're anticipating most.  RATATOUILLE came in second last - I repeat, second last.

Tom Brokaw said:
"Disney needs to *seriously* reconsider its schedule for next year.  First, there's MEET THE ROBINSONS going against TMNT.  Then, there's RATATOUILLE going against TRANSFORMERS and LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD."
----
First, let's talk about TMNT:  Nobody....NOBODY...cares about an expired 80's icon, except those who've grown up to be parents, or are fringe-niche enough to know that it's *not* that goofy weekday-afternoon thing.  Of which there aren't really enough to speak of yet.
There are those hypnotized by the "schedule wars" article who say "Oh, but it's a major player", and then we point back to the fact that it's the Weinsteins.  Who will show -any- CGI they can grab their hot little hands on, so long as they don't have to make it themselves.  And just how long with they spend the rest of their life living down "Doogal" jokes?...Who can say?
As for Die Hard, name the last Bruce Willis-headline hit.  Go ahead.

Which brings us to Transformers--Okay, so Transformers has better looking trailers than Pixar.  So did "Godzilla".  And we all rushed down to that one on opening weekend.  (And when you're with Michael Bay, Murphy is alive and well and living on the Island.)

Now, about that second terrifyingly convincing argument:
---
"ComingSoon.com recently had a poll asking readers what summer 2007 release they're anticipating most.  RATATOUILLE came in second last - I repeat, second last."
---
Wait...So--let me get what I'm hearing straight--you're saying that Pixar made a movie with a vague, unhelpful teaser that left the audience scratching their heads about the plot, and now they don't want to see it ahead of time, enough though they might once it opens and we see some more specific trailers?...
Good heavens, man, THAT'S never happened before!!!!  0_0

Maybe it's me, but I just can't help but feel that too much stock (no pun intended) is put into what the investment community thinks, and that this site has become less and less about the stories behind the "magic," if you will, and more about Wall Street's reactions.

I know I wasn't the only person who said a couple weeks back when Jim re-posted an old article that I wouldn't mind seeing more content like that on the site again.  Stuff focusing on the history aspect.  Yeah, sure, they may not generate as many comments, but the comments to stories like this are often negative, and frequently turn into arguments.

Of course, I don't really care about all of the financial stuff.  Sure, the entertainment industry is a business, and their bottom line is, theoretically, profits.  However, personally, I care more about the artistic side of things, because I still think of film as an art-form, something that seperates me from the Wall Street crowd.  They don't care if a movie is good; they only care about profitability.

What happened to the JHM that gave us those (often unfinished) multi-part stories about things like Light Magic or Star Tours?  Those were interesting, informative, and, well, useful.  It was fun to learn something about a favorite attraction, and then share the information I learned with my family while we were at Disney World.

Honestly, it seems like (especially since the Save Disney stuff), this site has become more and more about the corporate/financial side of the Mouse, and less and less about the side of the Mouse that people love- the entertainment and the magic.  Before, it was like a magician sharing the tricks of the trade in a way that enhanced one's enjoyment; now, it really just feels like numbers in charts organized to make us second-guess Disney.

Well, I for one give Pixar the blessing to do an Americana film. Japan's biggest animation studio, Studio Ghibli, does Japan-centric films all the time. It's certainly made any lost thunder up in merchandising and eventual DVD sales. About Ratotouille, it should be huge in France at least! Seriously though it's a Pixar film, and if Cars domestic take is any sign, America supports Pixar. The sales will be back up worldwide

Also, what's with this quote?
>>Make no mistake, folks. This was an incredibly cold-blooded move on Disney & Pixar's part. Art didn't really factor into this equation. Only commerce.<<

If you mean the actual film, get out of here. If you mean the placement of it's release, no crap, that's any Hollywood picture. Maximize on sales. Why WOULD art have a place in the release date of a film?

Anonymouse wrote:
"Of course, I don't really care about all of the financial stuff.  
personally, I care more about the artistic side of things, because I still think of film as an art-form, something that seperates me from the Wall Street crowd.  They don't care if a movie is good; they only care about profitability. "
---
Jim seems to be using Wall Street as a credibilty "duck-blind"--
Where he can stand back and say "Oh, they shouldn't have overestimated 'Cars' and expected it to outdo Nemo", but then spend the -entire- rest of the article quoting every single exec or Wall Street who ever said something bad about the movie, use it as evidence that "Wall Street is worried about Pixar's performance", and then use a "Whaddya think folks...Could they be RIGHT??" tagline to (hopefully) get our hands wringing--Obviously in the hopes that -we'll- also be picturing Disney execs weeping, gnashing their teeth, and saying "Why, oh, WHY did we ever buy Pixar?"
In other words, he wants it both ways, he wants to keep his hands clean, and he wants to look like the responsible journalist who -isn't- playing "I can make 'em and I can break 'em" to "avenge" Lasseter, Roy Disney, or whomever.

A week ago, we had Jim apologizing to  that JHM "wasn't playing its 'A' game lately" after its other number-crunch obsession, and Mousewatch Monday, he was back at it by the clock.
There's a word for alcoholics when they do that with their own psychological needs.  And it's followed by the word "Intervention".  Which is when it isn't funny anymore.

DerekJ, with all due respect, sir, sarcasm is not needed toward my comments.  I wasn't trying to make an argument, just trying to state a few notes and an opinion.

As a Disney fan, I want the company to succeed.  With that said, do you not agree that there are better dates for these films to be released on?  Would it not be better for these movies to be released on weekends with little competition, thus giving them head starts for long, excellent box office runs?

Here's a posting from overseas, from Vienna, Austria, Europe. Cars hasn't come out in the cinema's yet. And to be honest: I am still not sure whether I am going to see it in the there or to wait a couple of weeks more and order it on DVD from the States, cause it will definitely be available by then.

To me, this movie like Home on the range plays way to much in an American setting to which the rest of the world might have difficulty connecting with. Furthermore: I really don't like the way the cars are handled to look human. It is just plain ugly.

Just for the record: I adore The incredibles, TS and Monster's Inc. But I think it is okay for a company to have a movie every once in a while which is not the ultimate.

Where are all the articles telling us about ANT BULLY's box office?  

Tom Brokaw wrote:
"With that said, do you not agree that there are better dates for these films to be released on?  Would it not be better for these movies to be released on weekends with little competition, thus giving them head starts for long, excellent box office runs?"
---
Easily--Regardless of how good or bad Ratatouille looks (and for those who read Jim's "spoiler" article about the -actual- plot, it looks pretty good), it'll get a last-minute change to get a weekend by itself, but not for competition...It's just that July is for Big Action Blockbusters, and June is for Feel-Good Favorites, and Pixar movies have June written all over them.

Quality or  not, the mindset of "Why are we playing chicken with the Transformers?" may set in to a more reasonable mid-June release
Not that I think the Transformers will be stumble-free or live up to its fans' wishful-thinking, though...Remember, the final proof is in the popcorn:    Remember back when Cars was going to be "crushed" by Superman Returns?  :)

PingBack from http://www.disneyworldticketsvacation.info/?p=17

Now there's something different...Monday morning and Jim running Cars and the PIxar acquisition through the grist mill...again...and again....and again.

Good grief...after all the series of articles we're waiting for Jim to finish, he starts a new one. Jim - in all seriousness, quit beating a dead horse. We all know how you feel about Cars and the Pixar acquisition. Move on...

The negative slant of the stories on this site....its getting pathetic....

what's getting disappointing is this site...

. . . yet you still feel the urge to come here, read the articles, and then post your prattle to set him straight.  Y'all silly.

It's true that the film is a bit "too American". My wife, and several people we know, basically complained about the same thing, that it begins incredibly slowly, to the point of boredom, since down here in Brazil we know squat about NASCAR. But after McQueen gets to Radiator Springs, the film sets off, everyone liked it. Comon oppinion also points out that Mater is the best character, and the fact that the Portuguese translation and dubbing added lots of regionalisms and a strong hick accent to him probably helped around 70% on that.
Personally, I believe it wasn't their best, but it definitely wasn't their worst. I'd certainly rate it above Finding Nemo (which to this day I'm still trying to understand why it was so successful).

I'm afraid it is at the point where it feels like Pixar snubbed Jim on an interview or personal tour of the facilities at Pixar or something and he told some marketing person - "Well, then, I'm going to write every negative comment I possibly can! You'll see!" Thus, we also get in-depth articles on "Over the Hedge" and "The Ant Bully" as well. I like this site a whole lot and still read all the 'dump on Pixar' articles, but it all seems political.

The site feels like it has changed since the Pixar purchase.  We get three parters about Over the Hedge and the Ant Bully, but no follow up story.  Why not talk about how Monster House seriously underperformed?  What happened to the massive three part attraction articles?  I'll still read the articles, but I find it harder and harder to really take Jim seriously.  Everyday I'm find myself thinking: Is today the day we read about Star Tours or another cheap shot at Pixar? Is DMC and AWE a box office success or box office failure?  It's like I said before, we lost our villian and we are looking for new ones.

Jim, do you, by any chance, own a big chunk of Disney stock?  

It really doesn't seem like you're being an impartial party just stating facts.  It's as if you stated your opinion and are really going all out to try to sway your readers into believing that you're right.   OK, we get it.  You think Disney overpaid.   Cars is doing horribly at the box office.  Now can we please move on????

I used to really look forward to reading your articles everyday to gain great insight inside of the creative world of Disney (especially the future projects and attractions).  Now, it just seems that there's a lot of Disney bashing.  

I second TikiBird73 regarding the Star Tours thing -- I wanna read the rest of that story!

I also feel compelled to chime in and say that I didn't care for Finding Nemo and wasn't drawn to Cars at all. It's interesting to read about its performance.

And -- DerekJ -- count me and my Dad as two "fringe-niche" guys waiting for TMNT! It looks cool and VERY welcome change from the standard "goofy funny animal or other anthropomorphized object" CGI movie. There's a darker action feel (at least in the trailer) that looks pretty cool!

For those of you counting this marks the 27th week in a row since Jim Hill has run an interesting article ...

Jim really ... is this the best you have to offer us? If so, you've got problems. It's not even about Cars being good or bad or my opinion on it or whatever ... it's just a dull story. Period. This may be interesting to SOMEONE, I suppose, but who that someone is I'm not really sure.

Do us all (including yourself) a favor, Jim, and abandon your tendancy to publish these ludicrous anti-Pixar rants and go back to writing the interesting articles you used to write. Seriously ... this site has evolved into the dullest spot on the 'Net ... completely predictable, as biased as the mainstream media, and filled with too much insider gobbledy-gook.

Before everyone asks why I keep coming back, it's because it takes little to no effort to do so and I keep hoping against hope that Jim will revert back to form. Eventually, though, it will just stop being worth it.

To the point of the story ... YAWN ... I'm not surprised this movie didn't do well overseas. It's a distinctly American story and, frankly, I don't really care if the Europeans don't get it. They don't get a lot of things about us. The movie made money ... a lot of money. It's not the most successful film in Pixar history. It's a great movie. It sells merchandise like there's no tomorrow and the DVD sales will be through the roof.

That's good enough for me. So Pixar hit a triple instead of another grand slam ... is that REALLY worthy of this much ink Jim? I think not ... personal vendettas are ugly things.

Jim,
Yet another article about the peformance of Cars?  How many has this been now?  We get it!  The horse is officially dead.  You can stop beathing it now.

Not much negative at this site..........pretty upbeat most of the time
http://www.mouseplanet.com/

DerekJ wrote:
"Quality or  not, the mindset of 'Why are we playing chicken with the Transformers?' may set in to a more reasonable mid-June release
Not that I think the Transformers will be stumble-free or live up to its fans' wishful-thinking, though...Remember, the final proof is in the popcorn:    Remember back when Cars was going to be 'crushed' by Superman Returns?  :)"
---
You know, that's a good point about Cars vs. Superman...  I'm glad you mentioned it.  Puts my mind a little more at ease. =)

"PTINDY said:
Not much negative at this site..........pretty upbeat most of the time
http://www.mouseplanet.com/"

Just to be clear ... I'm not one of these pollyana Disney fans who only wants to read positive stuff about the company. I think there are MANY negative stories that are very print worthy. My issue is more that, A. this really shouldn't be a negative story. It's more Jim's negative slant on a positive issue that annoys me.

Frankly, though, I find the sites that only print positive stuff even more irritating.

I held back from posting for a few articles because I annoyed some Mike guy.. where is he now??? Why hasn't he come to Jim's defense?? Because maybe he finally realized Jim is taking out his anger at Disney for kicking him out of their private property giving an unauthorized tour.... Now, he bashes them any chance he gets... Cars made $230 million??? Isn't that 10 times the about his precious Over the Hedge made?? How about Ant Bully??? Can't Jim write an article talking about how terrible these two bombs did in the theater?? Maybe not cause he promoted these two pathetic excuses for movies ad nauseum... I am sorry, but Jim is a Disney basher.... Stick to the history of Disney Jim, that is when you are at your best...

Jim is mostly right for cars. Domestically, it was a modest success. Saying it is the 2nd biggest film of the year isn't an indication that it did great, but rather that almost every other movie did sucky. It's run is pretty much over. It made $600k this weekend. Using Nemo as a comparison, by the time Nemo made $600k (in its 16th weekend), it only had $5m left in its domestic run (which would put cars at about $243m). Worldwide, it drops down to 6th biggest movie of the year (at most, it could move to #4). It's not even the biggest animated film wordwide this year (that would go to Ice Age 2).

Cars is by no means a bomb, but it's also not the success story eveyone here makes it out to be.

WDWacky...
Only offering it as an alternative.
I read a number of Disney sites. I don't want things sugarcoated.
But, I feel that Jim has more to offer than these types of stories, that he has treasure trove of knowledge and insight that has yet to be unleashed.
And the fact that he starts a series then does not finish.

You have a magical day.

You would think that Disney would learn from its mistake of putting out Cars in the summer.  Rattatouille is going to be destroyed by Trasnformers and Die Hard 4 (which has the worst title ever I think.)  They should push "Rat" to November where it will flourish a little better than it would in the summer.  But hey, if they want to prove a point that Pixar isn't as high and mighty as it used to be, they are certainly going the right way.  That's likely why they bought Pixar, to eliminate the potential competition which is a shame.

I think the CGI boom is weakening, and that's part of why "Cars" hasn't been the huge blockbuster (but still a solid hit) as per Pixar's other films. CGI gets very wearying visually- I know that for me, the novelty has definitely worn off. Plus the concept of "Cars" just didn't work for me. A world of talking cars, no humans, was just too much of a stretch. That said, the artistry of "Cars" is evidence that once again Pixar just blows every other CGI studio out of the water. Absolutely beautiful. But is even superb technical wizardry enough anymore? Or CGI alone? Look at the other CGI films this summer. Box office for each has gotten weaker as the summer progresses. This IMO indicates audience fatigue. Look at the latest release - "Barnyard". Yeah, it's doing better than "Ant Bully", but it's still doing lousy, nothing like what Paramount hoped, you bet.

Bottom line, CGI's novelty has worn off, and so story and theme are going to be more important than ever to sell a film. Fortunately, Pixar has always known this (its leaders are students of Disney, after all) and "Cars" is a very minor stumble for it. It will recover and produce great films in the future. Of that I am confident.

Of all the stories for Jim to see through to the bitter end, he picks this one.

And speaking of those unauthorized tours, how are the recordings going?

Cars under performed. So what!! Everyone at Pixar was worried that expectations were SO HIGH and that EVENTUALLY one of their movies wasn't going to perform better than the last. With Finding Nemo making close to billion dollars, how can you beat that?!?!
I think the key here is in Bob Iger's comment "we see enormous potential for this entertainment property and believe (in "Cars" ) enduring appeal, particularly among young boys."
I COMPLETELY agree. Finding Nemo did GREAT at the box office, BUT has VERY limited appeal beyond the movie. How much merchandise did it sell?? Not much, I'm guessing. Cars is a genuine franchise that will keep on giving for YEARS to come. BUT even more important is the "young boys" comment. Disney has VERY little for boys. They have Princesses, Fairies, Bunnies, etc for girls, but for boys they have Power Rangers (can ANYTHING be lamer or more tired) and Dragons (weak!). Not a whole lot. With the right plans, Cars can rival Princesses $1 Billion a year (or is it $2 bil now?).
I know that some people are going to complain about Disney trying to create franchises, but ask yourself, how much better would DCA or DAK or Epcot or MGM be if they spent a billion dollars? And Disney can't spend it, if they don't have it.

It looks like "Cars" did pretty good stateside, shure it skewed a bit towards boys but maybe Disney needed a "boys" property to offset the Disney Princesses.  If the real problem is oversees profits shouldn't we also take into account the fact that the topic is very much all-American and worldwide opinion of the U.S. is at an all-time low.  I think "Cars" performance is the reslut of the World's low opinion of the Bush presidency and all things American.  Why support financially a regime you dislike?

I have lurked here for 6 months and have sat quietly annoyed with all of the JHM bashing in the comments.  However, today I am officially a convert.   Here are some things I would LOVE to read about.....

1) Recent price increases for the parks -- why twice in eight months and why so much
2) More info on the new Monsters Inc ride at WDW
3) Why Millionaire is closing and Sounds Dangerous continues on
4) With Everest and a new full service restaurant,are there long-term plans to truly expand AK?
5) More info on the future of 2-d animation

Anything anything ANYTHING but if I see one more chart proving CARS is actually going to bankrupt Disney, I am going to scream.

Thank you.

jedited said:
Finding Nemo did GREAT at the box office, BUT has VERY limited appeal beyond the movie.

Except that  Nemo is the central point of 3 major WDW attractions (Turtle Talk, new show at Animal Kingdom, and new ride at Loving Seas).  Does any movie have more attractions?

"With Finding Nemo making close to billion dollars, how can you beat that?!?! "
The point is that not only did it do worse than Nemo, it did worse than Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc & Incredibles (and just barely better than a Bugs Life).


"but for boys they have Power Rangers (can ANYTHING be lamer or more tired) and Dragons (weak!)"
And Disney Heros and Pirates and Jetix and other things as well


"I think "Cars" performance is the reslut of the World's low opinion of the Bush presidency and all things American. "
No, don't be blaming Cars performance on things that have nothing to do with it. Pixar made a film that was to niche. Racing is just not popular in other parts of the world. It would be like them making a soccer film. Sure, it would do pretty good overseas but if it was based around soccer, it wouldn't do as well here.


"Why support financially a regime you dislike?"
So are you saying that everyone who purchases 'made-in-china' products supports China's government? That is just silly.


"Except that  Nemo is the central point of 3 major WDW attractions (Turtle Talk, new show at Animal Kingdom, and new ride at Loving Seas).  Does any movie have more attractions?"
Not to mention the new Disneyland submarine attraction & their version of Turtle Talk.

I couldn't keep my eyes off the great CARS characters in this article and wished I had the toys!

Still not one peep on this site about the Frog Princess.  It's been at least two weeks since the "official" announcement yet we've yet to hear Jim's take on it.  Instead, we get yet another "Cars Disappoints" article.  Can we please move on?  Finish one of the series articles, rehash an old article, something, anything, ANYTHING AT ALL but another Cars-is-a-box-office-failure piece!

jedited said:
"Disney has VERY little for boys. They have Princesses, Fairies, Bunnies, etc for girls, but for boys they have Power Rangers (can ANYTHING be lamer or more tired) and Dragons (weak!)."

The Disney Dragon line, at $300 a pop, is not targeted at boys.  It is targeted at adult collectors.  Which is a shame because boys do love dragons and with Eragon coming out this fall, it would be easy for Disney to ride the coat-tails with a bit of its own merchandizing.  I agree Disney has little in the way of "boys lines".  That said, Cars still skews too young for my kids.  Disney missed a golden opportunity to market to tween boys with POTC.  Crappy looking action figures, preschool-looking type playsets no self-respecting 8 year old would play with and over-priced costume sets that looked as cheaply made as a discount Halloween costume at Wal-Mart.  Wrong niche thinking apparent all the way around with this one.  If they really want to make a grab at boys, the need to get in bed with Lego.  A Lego Black Pearl?  Boys would snatch that up in a heatbeat!

I think the whetstone is looking a little worn, Jim.  Perhaps time to stop grinding the axe.  Ditto with askmike, who, before the movie opened, opined that he wanted it to underperform....and looks for any reason to try to justify that it has.

The fact is, the movie has had a very successful domestic run.  It's done very, very well here in the states.  The fact is, when the movie was put into production, and all along it's development, they knew it was going to be a tough sell abroad.  And it has been.  No real surprises, there.

This movie is nowhere NEAR as unsuccessful as "some" want to paint it as being.

I can see Jim now.  He has the evil smile of Mr. Burns saying "excellent, excellent" as the hits and comments pile up for another "Car bashing" article.

I agree with just about everyone else that this line of articles is getting a little old. This particular slant is a little closer to the mark. I do think that a foreign box office take of $128 Million is a very weak showing, and is a bit of a dissappointment. I do think that the NASCAR slant of the film really hurt this film's chances in the foreign market. I didn't see any of the foreign trailers, but I would think that foreign trailers should really play up the relationship side of the movie over the racing part. I actually feel that was one of the weaknesses in the domestic marketing as well.

Jim, if you feel like Disney overpaid for Pixar and that Pixar is overrated, why not write an editorial where you state your opinions, instead of writing why other people think that Cars is a flop and the Pixar acquisition was a mistake?

I'm really looking forward to articles covering different aspects of the Disney Company, or other parts of the entertainment industry.

"Eighty-Eight Keys said:
I have lurked here for 6 months and have sat quietly annoyed with all of the JHM bashing in the comments.  However, today I am officially a convert.   Here are some things I would LOVE to read about.....

1) Recent price increases for the parks -- why twice in eight months and why so much
2) More info on the new Monsters Inc ride at WDW
3) Why Millionaire is closing and Sounds Dangerous continues on
4) With Everest and a new full service restaurant,are there long-term plans to truly expand AK?
5) More info on the future of 2-d animation"

I'd rather read about any of those things than this tripe. These are exactly the kinds of stories I look for on this site and instead I get 36 articles about how terrible Pixar is and how great Ant Bully is.

BTW if people chose what movies to see and what products to buy based on how they feel about the "regime" that produced them, France would have been bankrupt years ago.

"Ditto with askmike, who, before the movie opened, opined that he wanted it to underperform....and looks for any reason to try to justify that it has. "
If "any reason" is pointing out that it is doing worse than Pixar's last 4 films, then okay. Do you think I'm pullling these numbers out of a hat? What I have said is FACT. And if you are too covered in pixie dust to realize that Cars isn't the box office smash people here are making it out to be, that's too bad for you. FACT is that it is doing very poorly overseas, bringing its entire worldwide total far under Pixar's last 4 movies. And saying that the domestic total makes up for the intn'l one is just dumb. Foreign money is just as important as domestic money. I mean, where should people lower expectations? Is it bad to think it should do better than Pixar's 3rd film (which debuted in 1999 when ticket prices were much cheaper)? And using that quote against me just shows you have no argument to show I'm wrong.


"These are exactly the kinds of stories I look for on this site and instead I get 36 articles about how terrible Pixar is and how great Ant Bully is."
Again, Jim did not write those Ant Bully articles, Roger did.

The point isn't that people are in denial about Cars' box office--it's that Jim keeps writing articles about it and why (along with the Pixar deal) it's the absolute most ginormous mistake ever made by Disney.  *cough*EuroDisney*cough*DCA*cough*

Just to critique the article for a second, at no time does Jim try to explain this stock options scandal.  Sure he links out to it.  But why not try and explain it in the article?  Lazy.

I'm still waiting to hear what Jim has to say about Robert Zemeckis signing on with Disney, and what this means for his motion-capture animation company.  And yeah, any news about the parks, or the return of hand-drawn animation, or even another part in the Muppets/Star Tours/Light Magic/Tower of Terror/(fill in the blank) saga.

I wonder, if Disney and Pixar had decided to go their separate ways, would Jim have been against that?  

"askmike1 said:
Again, Jim did not write those Ant Bully articles, Roger did."

Last time I checked Jim's name was on the masthead. He controls the site's content, correct?

With great power comes great responsibility, right?

"brick1974 said:

The point isn't that people are in denial about Cars' box office--it's that Jim keeps writing articles about it and why (along with the Pixar deal) it's the absolute most ginormous mistake ever made by Disney.
*cough*EuroDisney*cough*DCA*cough*"

Add to that ...

*cough*Animal Kingdom*cough*new Figment*cough*Stitch's Great Escape*cough*Treasure Planet*cough*Home On the Range*cough*pretty much anything done by Disney between the years 1996 and 2005*

Etc.

and Jim forgets to mention that  CARS still has a few International markets that it hasn't opened in.

Jim i think its time for stories that are worth while and stop trying to do damaged control to your stories after most analyst are ok and happy on how the movie is playing.
No  One, no matter how many times you keep saying it, expected CARS to beat Nemo.

Eighty-Eight Keys said:
"Here are some things I would LOVE to read about.....
2) More info on the new Monsters Inc ride at WDW
3) Why Millionaire is closing and Sounds Dangerous continues on
4) With Everest and a new full service restaurant,are there long-term plans to truly expand AK?
5) More info on the future of 2-d animation"
----
I like that idea, Eighties, let's tack on a few more REAL JHM articles:

6) What's happening at Pleasure Island? - What's going in after Raglan Road?  And who played the farewell concert before they closed down the West End stage?
7) What's the deal with "Narnia: Prince Caspian"? - Script problems?  Delays?  And now that Walden and Disney have broken up, will we ever see the "Dawn"?
8) Disney Club Villas at the Contemporary? - Will that old Bay Lake skyline ever be the same?
9) So, Lasseter's first original park ride is going in, but what the Billy Hill is a "Midway Madness"?...Is anybody talking?  (Well, okay, so maybe we should get off the word "Lasseter" for a while)
10) The "In Defense of What Went Wrong" series - Reposting the '01 article on the script changes to "Atlantis", followed by new articles on the pre-Eisner "Treasure Planet", and the long sad saga of "Sweating Bullets"

And that's considering we had to MAKE Jim do an informative "Meet the Robinsons article ourselves:
The first step in rehab is in admitting a problem--The second step to a cure is in wanting to develop an interest again in the world around you, outside of the closed world of one's addiction.
It's article-Trainspotting, Jim...Choose Life.  :)

"Last time I checked Jim's name was on the masthead. He controls the site's content, correct?"
Not quite. Last time I checked, site content was controlled by Corey Mitchell. Jim wrote a whole article a while ago saying that he'd be in charge of scheduling the articles & other day-to-day issues. Don't know if he is still doing so, but he's the last one I know was doing it.

"*cough*Animal Kingdom*cough*"
You better be getting yourself some caugh medicine  because Animal Kingdom is one of the most popular theme parks now. It's now the 5th most attended theme park (just a few thousand behind DMGM Studios). And with the addition of Expedition Everest this year (which is easily one of the most popular rides in Disney World now), I'd expect it to move up to number 4 this year. And go to any Disney forum and ask them which is the prettiest/best themed/most detailed theme park in Disney World and I can all but guarantee you that AK will get the most responses.


"*pretty much anything done by Disney between the years 1996 and 2005* "
Oh, so you mean things like Rock 'n' Rollercoaster, Soarin', Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, The Chronicals of Narnia, Armageddon, Signs, Sixth Sense, The Waterboy, Remember the Titans, Tarzan, Lilo & Stitch, Collaberating with Pixar, National Treasure, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, Lost, Dancing with the Stars, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, Boston Legal, Kyle XY & Wildfire (2 extremely popular shows on ABCFamily), Disney Princesses, Animal Kingdom (read prior statement), Mickey's Philharmagic (very popular), Test Track, Mission:Space, The Land refurb, That's So Raven, Suite Life of Zach & Cody, Lizzie McGuire, Kim Possible............ I could go on & on & on.

Mike, I'm not even going to bother with you ... if Disney polished a turd and set it down in place of the Main Street, you'd find a way to say it was a good idea.

"No  One, no matter how many times you keep saying it, expected CARS to beat Nemo."
But didn't people at least expect it to beat The Incredibles? Or Monsters Inc? Or even Toy Story 2?

You always gain allies when you site "That's So Raven" as part of your argument...

OK, let's try this:
Jim, Mike, and wanna-be analysts - you're right - Cars was a dreadful failure - oh the shame!  however shall we live? whatever shall we do? Everyone agrees with you. Now that we've seen the light, and we're all agreed - we can move forward to (gasp) a new topic for stories.

Strike out the extraneous "the" in that sentence ...

Mickey_Hal said:
I can see Jim now.  He has the evil smile of Mr. Burns saying "excellent, excellent" as the hits and comments pile up for another "Car bashing" article.
---
Again, I don't think Jim is QUITE that guiled in piling up the articles--I think he thinks he's doing pre-sale Disney a "favor", or "keeping alive the dream" of Save Disney.com, which is as yesterday's-news as "Ant Bully".

Yes, he ends every article with "Whaddya think, folks?" to sound like the talk-radio host who's worried that the phone's aren't ringing yet, and that's the job to segueway into readers reading the comments...
But if he is deliberately out to punching-bag Pixar, Iger and Lasseter just to get our goats, he's dangerously on the edge of becoming the Disney equivalent of those shock-cranky talk-radio hosts who scream "The president should be shot!" just to provoke listeners into providing -him- with episode content.  (And those who remember Buck Henry in a memorable early-SNL sketch may not be far off.)

Personally, though, I think he's still living in those halcyon/idealistic SaveDisney.com days again, and he's the Japanese soldier on the island still fighting the war.  Which was a memorable Gilligan's Island episode, but doesn't help us with our real current Iger & Lasseter information much.

askmike1 said:
"And if you are too covered in pixie dust to realize that Cars isn't the box office smash people here are making it out to be, that's too bad for you."

You have facts and figures to prove Cars is a box office disappointment. You're a box office mojo wizard and an obvious believer that numbers don't lie.  Fantastic!  Maybe someday, you can parlay that into a career.  But I, for one, could care less about how Cars did or didn't do at the box office. I just want to see some other content on the site besides Cars box office returns.  From the looks of this comment section, I'm not the only one.

"Again, Jim did not write those Ant Bully articles, Roger did."
The commenter never said Jim wrote the articles.  The comment was regarding the content of articles on the site.  Who appointed you defender of the realm, anyway?  Its obvious to all Jim doesn't really care what his readership thinks.   There have been enough calls for him to improve the content of this site, finish series articles, reinsitute new features that appear once and vanish into oblivion thereafter.  Nothing ever comes of it.  Jim likes poking the bear and stirring the hornets' nest with these articles.    

wah wah wah

Seriously, the articles on this site were more positive and fun to read back during the "Save Disney" thing.

Ok, I don't want to debate about Cars anymore. Jim can write anything he wants to. It is his site. But can we please agree that enough is enough? We understand your point, Cars was a dissapointment to the Wall Street types that were expecting it to do Finding Nemo level numbers. This story is incredibly similar to at least 2 other storie that were already run on this site. I'm not really learning anything new or interesting. Heck, the most intesting part of these articles is reading the backlash in the comments section.

"You always gain allies when you site "That's So Raven" as part of your argument..."
Whether adults like it is beyond the point. It is one of DC's most popular shows (along with Hannah Montanah & Suite Life).


"Jim, Mike, and wanna-be analysts - you're right - Cars was a dreadful failure"
Cars is not a failure and neither Jim nor I have said that. Cars has done very well domestically, but is performing disappointingly at the worldwide Box Office whether you see it or not. Not everything is black or white, failure or success.


"You have facts and figures to prove Cars is a box office disappointment. You're a box office mojo wizard and an obvious believer that numbers don't lie.  Fantastic!  Maybe someday, you can parlay that into a career. But I, for one, could care less about how Cars did or didn't do at the box office."
Good, then don't read these articles. In an article that discusses Cars' numbers, I will too discuss Cars' numbers (and point out the reality of it). If on the other hand this was a piece about Cars as an artistic means, I'd talk about my opinion of Cars.



And for everyone who thinks that nobody reads these articles anymore, I'd challenge you to look at the stats. While the average JH article will get about 5000 views and 20 comments, articles about Box Office figures average 12000 views and about 100 comments. The only articles people view more are ones that give spoilers about future films (like the Lady in the Water & Ratatouille articles).

J-H, YOU-SIR WRITE THE BEST BLOGS ON ANIMATION-EVER!
  I TYPE IN ALL CAPS FROM  HAND TREMMORS,SO PLEASE ALLOW THIS,AS IT MAKES IT EASIER TO THINK AND 'HUNT AND PECK' AT THE SAME TIME.i'M DISABLED BUT NOT UNABLED.
 FIRST-OFF; DIZNEY IS STILL SPELLED THAT WAY BY ME . BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL 'DIZZY' WITH INEPT MANAGEMENT AND BAD FIRING POLICIES+ PURCHASES -RE EXTREMLY WASTEFUL SCENARIOS.THE RECENT FIRING(AFRAID OF A FEMALE SUCCESS) OF THE FEMALE HEAD WAS PURE BULLSHIT AND SIMPLY RESULTS IN MORE LOSSES TO STOCK HOLDERS MONIES.
 HEREZ WHAT DIZNEY DOES WORST; THEY CHOOSE TO MAKE NEW TOONS THAT HAVE THE SAME OLD 'ANIMAL' CHARACTERS,SUCH AS BRAD BIRD'S NEW 'RAT' FLICK ABOUT A RAT THAT WANTS TO BECOME A FRENCH CHEF.
  LETS FACE IT,ALL THE BARNYARD CHARACTERS(FOR DECADES) HAVE BEEN DONE TO DEATH AND THEN-SOME!!
 SO...DIZNEY ,IN ANOTHER CLUELESS ATTEMPT TO MAKE SOMTHING DIFFERENT CHOOSES TO USE 'CARS' AS THE CHARACTERS AND YOU SAW THE RESULTS. NOW,FANZ HAVE TO ENDURE ANOTHER 'RODENT' FLICK? BULLSHIT!
 JUST WHY DIZNEY CAN NOT LOOK BEYOND IT'S AROGANT-INCOMPENTENT ,PINOCIEO NOSE OF LIES AND EXCUSES IS BEYOND ANY RATIONAL REASONING.
 THERE ARE COMPLETLY ORIGIONAL CONCEPTS ,OUT THERE, RIGHT NOW, WAITING TO SHOW THE TOON WORLD SUCH FRESH-NEW-CHARACTERS-BACKGROUNDS+STORY LINES,AND ALL DIZNEY CAN DO IS COZY-UP TO PIXAR WITH AN SEVERAL BILLION BUY OUT THAT NEVER WORKED,NOR DID IT REMOVE THE THREAT OF PIXAR GOING IT ALONE,BECAUSE IT NOW LOOKS LIKE PIXAR COULD EASILY SABATOGE DIZNEY WITH MORE 'CARS'.... DELIBERATE FLOPS?
   IT'S SOMTHING TO THINK ABOUT,AS ( S. J. )  IS NO FOOL. DIVIDE AND CONQUER...FROM WITHIN,YOU MIGHT SAY; A 'TROJAN HORSE' THAT DIZNEY PAID TOO HIGH AND DEAR  A PRICE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
  LASTLY: LOOK A LITTLE CLOSER (ON THE WEB)FOR MANY ARTIST NEW IDEAS AND INCLIDE MY TOON CONCEPTS OF ORIGIONAL- ORIGIONS AND REALIZE THAT STUPID-ARROGANT DIZNEY 'GATE KEEPERS' ARE ALL ASLEEP ,AT THEIR 'CARS WHEEL'
WHILST THERE HEADS ARE STILL UP THEIR ASSES ,WITH THEIR EXECUTIVE-BY-CARTOONS COMMITTEES THAT LANGUISH IN THEIRSAME-OL  BARNYARD HOG'S TROUGHS, OF INSANE CHOICES OF REDUNDANT CRAP(EVEN IF BRAD B DOES THEM) THAT THEY LIKE TO CALL ANIMATION.  
 CHEERZ FROM DAWK
 

I agree Mike and that's why he keeps writing the same old garbage to stir the pot.  

Again if we're talking about money in the end why doesn't jim mention that Cars merchandise is outselling Nemo merchandise 10 to 1?

But no Jim continues to focus on the negative, but should I be surprised anymore.  By the way it is Jim's name on the Over the Hedge articles earlier this year.

Dawk-

What the heck was that?

And just to post-mortem:
---
brick1974 said:
"Just to critique the article for a second, at no time does Jim try to explain this stock options scandal.  Sure he links out to it.  But why not try and explain it in the article?  Lazy."
---
Well, he -did- to the Variety article about Pixar's "involvement" with the stock scandal, as written by actual journalistic news sources--
In fact, that, if you're wondering, was the whole POINT of today's article:  "Hey, guys, guess what I just read in the news feed this morning [much like last week's terrorism story], and here's what -I- think of it!"
Yeah...Here's what -he- thinks of it.  But then again, he would.  :/

But yes, if he didn't provide us with the Read-more-about-it link, and just said "Y'know, I hear they're all buzzing about the big scandal!" completely out of context except what he wanted to hint at, we'd be talking some SERIOUS McCarthyist "Guilt by association" just about bordering on Hearst-style libel.
They're called "facts", Jim, they pep up a story a lot more effectively than manipulation, and you can't get sued for them later if those "involved" in the scandal turn out not to be implicated after all.

And just a word about the comments:  Does Jim read them, or does he wave them off as "Oh, that wild and woolly Internet!"?
Well, we know he -sometimes- reads them:  As we found out when he laughed off "Oh, ho ho, 'a conspiracy theory' to destroy Cars, that's rich, guffaw guffaw!" during the POTC-numbers craze, and then went back to re-edited the same article with a little more seriousness after he found out from subsequent comments that -we- weren't laughing...
But then, again, the only kick in the pants he's gotten lately to move on and write new articles have come from "A fellow e-mailed me yesterday to ask:"

So...let us "fellows" take it that the comments here are open letters to all-and-sundry readers.  We don't expect Jim to actually do anything about them, but Silence Is Compliance.  If you do want to make some change on this site, let Jim know at his own e-mail--as we know he reads that--and let him know "Whaddya think, folks?"
In no.
Uncertain.
TERMS.  :)

It'll be interesting to see if Dale Mc Farlane's (DAWK's) all-caps, profanity-laced tirade/rant will be edited or deleted.  Let's wait and see...

If Jim does, in fact, keep writing these stories simply because it boosts site visits (which are driven solely by all of us coming back to this page to *** at him and one another), then he's got a case of short-term thinking like I haven't seen since Eisner.

Eventually all of us who grow weary of this slop will stop showing up and page hits will creep down to askmike congratulating Jim on another well-written article and pining for the good old Eisner days.

Profits rose at The Walt Disney Co. in the third quarter as the media conglomerate delivered growth from every division, including movies, theme parks, cable TV networks and consumer products.

The results released Wednesday easily beat analysts' estimates and came after a yearlong effort to focus the company's money and talent on its core brands and sell its content on new technology platforms.

The efforts paid off for investors who have seen shares of the Burbank-based company rise nearly 19 percent since the beginning of the year.

Disney shares rose on the results during the day Wednesday, but fell 15 cents to $28.83 at the end of regular trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Disney reported net income of $1.13 billion, or 53 cents per share, for the quarter ended July 1, compared with net income of $811 million, or 39 cents per share, in the same period last year.

The results beat analysts' estimates of 44 cents per share, as surveyed by Thomson Financial.

Revenue grew 12 percent to $8.62 billion in the most recent quarter from $7.72 billion for the same quarter last year.

Revenue at the company's movie studio division grew 17 percent to $1.7 billion on strong DVD sales of its hit film, "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," and theatrical revenue from the Pixar film "Cars."

The success of "Cars," a film aimed squarely at young boys, also fueled a 6 percent rise in revenue to $445 million at Disney's consumer products division.

As is my tradition, a list of the domestic box office failures and underperformers of the summer based on expectations, which is now almost every film of the summer:
Superman Returns
Mission Impossible III
Miami Vice
Cars
The Fast and the Furious III: Tokyo Drift
Lady in the Water
Posiden
The Da Vinici Code
My Super Ex-Girlfriend
Monster House
Little Man (first Wayans film not to make it's money back, um, ever)

the "boarderline list"
X-Men 3: The Last Stand ($234 profit to $210 production)
World Trade Center ($26 so far to $63 budget will need a good multiplier in the commng weeks)

That's almost every film of the summer.   Are the only summer wide release hits "Taledega Nights," "The Devil Wears Prada," and "Over the Hedge?"  The industry has to look at it's expectations and budgets.

1) The DaVinci Code is not a disappointment in any way shape or form. Besides the $217m it made domestically, it grossed an astounding $750 million worldwide. For a $125m flick, it is a definite success story.

2) Other summer successes include Barnyard, John Tucker Must Die, The Omen, Nacho Libre and Click. You Me & Dupree and World Trade Center also met expectations.

3) And of course, there's the biggest success of all this summer.... Pirates of the Caribbean. This movie is only $145m away from the magical $1 billion mark worldwide (it looks to make about $20m more stateside and plenty more worldwide). It has broken the all-time opening record in spain this past weekend. Nearly everything PotC:AWE makes will be pure profit.

I think, on the whole, that Jim used to present a fair and balanced account of Disney. However, the conflict with Roy and SaveDisney.com, being denied admission to the annual meeting in Philadelphia, and being thrown-out of Disneyland all have seemed to forever altered the way Jim presents his Disney stories. I'm sure being treated that way is painful, but if you are going to present negative articles, then you have to expect and be ready for some retaliation. Take the hits, and move on. Maybe, in time, the relationship can be made to work again. But continually printing almost nothing but negative stories is damaging not to only the relationship with Disney, but to us readers as well.

All of us are Disney fans, some to a greater degree than others. But all of us care, in some way, about the company, and although I want to see someone write about the negative, I also want to see some positive stuff.

I think what Jim needs is a vacation from today's Disney. Don't write about it, don't research it, just ignore it. There are certainly enough sites out there for me to get my daily fix of Disney news.

Jim: take a few weeks off and write about something other than Disney for some other site or medium. Let the other contributors do their stuff, and fill in the rest with classic archive Jim Hill stories.  Then, after your Disney fast, sit down and finish EVERY series you started but have not finished. Then complete the Disneyland park tour CD, and any other loose ends you have with us site visitors.  Then, go back and start writing about the current Walt Disney Company.

Because, to tell you the truth Jim, I just won't one day stop coming to this site. Your sites bookmark has already, slowly, moved further to the right on my bookmark bar, and is going lower every two weeks or so.  Disney History at http://disneybooks.blogspot.com is now the place where I find the kind of information that I used to find here.

So, Jim, please take a break, give us "the rest of the story" on all those series you have yet to complete, then try and take a look at the current Disney with a fresh eye. And please do this soon, before I and others, just fade away....

"...all have seemed to forever altered the way Jim presents his Disney stories."
Exagerating a bit? I'm amazed that people keep saying Jim writes only negative articles and yet they fail to mention all the positive ones he's written. Over the past month, he has written the following articles:

Dragon/Bunnies
Disney Engagements/Couture
Bowled over 'Robinsons'
Storytelling on Epic Scale
SIGGRAPH
Steve Jobs
Tower of Terror

All positive articles. The handful of others were either articles like this or neutral articles.

k-man said:
I think, on the whole, that Jim used to present a fair and balanced account of Disney. However, the conflict with Roy and SaveDisney.com, being denied admission to the annual meeting in Philadelphia, and being thrown-out of Disneyland all have seemed to forever altered the way Jim presents his Disney stories.
----
I don't think it was "getting thrown out of Disneyland" that had any effect--By that point in his name-marketing aspirations, more likely he was eatin' it up.  :)

To be honest and play forensic psychologist here, I think it was something more specific than just the Roy/SaveDisney conflict:
We've seen a few other hardliners here who still show up and say "Maybe they'll bring Roy back!  :) ", and that's a little more extreme case of what Jim seems to be displaying--
Whether you were rooting for Roy or against him during the Troubles, you have to admit, it all came down smash with a cold-water case of Roy-tus Interruptus:  There we were, debating whether Bob Iger was an "evil puppet" of Eisner, whether Mike was going to sit back and pull strings, whether Save Disney was going to stay as a grass-roots campaign, and whether John Lasseter would ride to the rescue in home-made Joan of Pixar armor.
And then we woke up one morning and the entire thing was over:  They voted, Bob was in, Roy had nothing to do anymore, Eisner cut ties with the company, and a few months later, Pixar was now family, Stainton was fired and Lasseter was running features....Hubbba-hubba-WHAAAA??  0_0

The adjustment has been hard for some--We've been on a Disney-fan high for months of speculating how "evil" Iger would be, that we haven't been able to -stop- speculating about "what might happen", even after it's already happened and Iger's turned out to be a pretty nice guy.
Jim seems to be one of the old-school fighters who got so caught up in the Save Disney crusade, he doesn't want to be believe it's over yet--Y'see, what if maybe they're really still voting, Iger and Lasseter aren't -really- running the company yet, and if we get a grass-roots buzz campaign going on the net, we can get Roy to stage a coup, convince people that Lasseter's got feet of clay and the Pixar deal was a company breaker, and SaveDisney.com will be recognized for the heroic effort it was!

Guys...They voted.  And signed the papers.  Iger's had the job for a year now.    There is no more Disney War.  And no new ones are likely to start.

I simply don't have the energy to read through all of these  comments right now....Sorry...But I have to ask this question at this point....What would be being said right now if Disney had not done the Pixar deal? Someone try commenting on that concept.....

Did anyone else realize the huge difference in Jim's opinion about Pirates in less than a week?

Last week it was "we don't know how much these movies are actually costing" and "it'll be awhile before these movies sell into the black."  To using Pirates in this article to show how it is a phenomenon and bringing in the bucks,  and how Cars is again disapointing.

Does it seem strange to anyone else that Jim continues to rip on the two biggest money making films of the year which are both Disney and switches opinions to fit his article objectives?

//If on the other hand this was a piece about Cars as an artistic means, I'd talk about my opinion of Cars. //

And have you finally seen Cars, AskMike?

It seems like I ask this quite frequently and always get the "No, because I won't pay money to see it.  Only if my family pays for me" response.

But your sentiments there are quite odd, since when Cars came out, in articles that weren't about the artistic side of the film, you were quite eager to point to RottenTomatoes as a sign that Cars was an artistic failure.

I can only join a several of the other posters to say that Iger (or someone from Pixar?) must have really "soiled" Jim's front lawn to bring the kind of ranting, fault finding, nit picking diatribes being posted here now. At no point during the Eisner regime did Jim get this worked up.

Jimbo, I suggest you drop it and bring your bloodpressure back to normal. For one thing, your little website is about as powerful as a mouse belch in a hurricane. And for seconds, you're rapidly making yourself look like a grade A jackass.

I've seen this kind of behavior from a "specialist" website before. At Blue Oval News, the owner was getting all sorts of tasty information from Ford insiders. Most of which Ford didn't want out. So Ford threatened to sue and also closed down his sources of information. For the next 4 years the guy has published mainly negative information and rants about Ford, while boosting Ford's competition. Rather remarkably like what's been going on at this site. Well, all it did was drive me, and a lot of other folks away from that website, leaving the dysfunctional malcontents and bitter cranks to party together. If that's your aim, Jim, good luck and good bye.

Probably the main reason CARS has underperformed overseas, I think it’s been mentioned before, is the NASCAR angle.
F1 racing is big overseas, not NASCAR. So they were going to alienate a large section of the audience base right off the bat.   You think kids overseas give a hoot about a rusty old truck, as one of the main characters.

So it goes…see how the next movie does. If it underperforms, then start to worry. If it is a success, celebrate.
Just because it is a Pixar (Disney) movie will not always mean box office bonanza…….

Now about that dead horse……….

"If "any reason" is pointing out that it is doing worse than Pixar's last 4 films, then okay. Do you think I'm pullling these numbers out of a hat? What I have said is FACT. And if you are too covered in pixie dust to realize that Cars isn't the box office smash people here are making it out to be, that's too bad for you. FACT is that it is doing very poorly overseas, bringing its entire worldwide total far under Pixar's last 4 movies. And saying that the domestic total makes up for the intn'l one is just dumb. Foreign money is just as important as domestic money. I mean, where should people lower expectations? Is it bad to think it should do better than Pixar's 3rd film (which debuted in 1999 when ticket prices were much cheaper)? And using that quote against me just shows you have no argument to show I'm wrong. "

No, mike, the problem is your interpretation of the facts is biased by your aforementioned, and often cited, quote. Your interpretation of the facts are used to push an agenda.   It means pretty much everything you say is irrelevant, because you don't, by any stretch, have a balanced opinion on the matter and thus, your interpretation of any "facts" is suspect.  And your response above just further proves the point.  It's not that I don't have an argument to show you're wrong.  It's that I need no further argument to discredit you.

If something "underperforms" in the foreign market that the company EXPECTS to underperform in the foreign market because of it's subject matter, I don't think it's cause to point and say the sky is falling.  It's part of business.  They knew, coming into the worldwide release, that the subject matter was decidedly skewed toward the domestic consumer.  It seems they were OK with that.  

Let's look at some other facts:  In many countries (France, Spain, Taiwan) the movie is already doing as well, or better, than Monsters Inc (at least according to boxofficemojo).  Add to that fact that, in many markets, the film was released within the last 30 days...heck, it only opened in the UK a bit more than 2 weeks ago.  Add to THAT fact that, by looking at previous Pixar films (and others), Cars is still quite a ways off from being "done" in the foreign market.  And finally, add to THAT fact that it's going to face competiton from DMC (which has much broader appeal, particularly in the foreign markets) because, in many foreign markets, they're opening close to the same time.  You add all that up and THEN look at the current foreign gross.  It doesn't seem nearly as gloomy, does it?  When you know you're comparing a relatively "young" film in the foreign market, who's barely tapped the foreign market with the largest traditional gross (the UK) with films that have completed their foreign run long ago?  When you realize you're looking at a metric that doesn't, traditionally, depend quite as heavily on "the opening weekend"  blitz, but that tends to maximize over the long term?

In any event, when a movie grosses approx 240 million domestically, and approx 137 million (as of 8/13) in the foreign markets, on a 120 million production budget, I'd call that  a win for the studio that made the film.  It's currently grossed, worldwide, triple it's production budget.  That's not pixie dust talking, mike, that's not an agenda being pushed, it is an understaning of profitability and what, exactly, being successful actually MEANS to Disney.  It comes from have a balanced perspective on what successful actually means in "the real world", and not just the world of Disney-philes.  I certainly don't claim that Cars is the most successful film, ever, out of Pixar.  But nor is it the catestrophic debacle that others continue to try to paint it as.  This movie has done very, very, very, very well.  If you walked into any other studio in the country and gaurenteed them the same exact results we're seeing with Cars, all inclusive (Box office, merchandise...and we'll see on the DVD sales front)...the execs would sign on to the picture in a second.  And that's just the reality of the situation.

Is it, at this point, as successful as past Pixar films in some metrics?  Maybe not.  But it is more successful in some metrics, and about as successful in still others.  So to paint the film as being "unsuccessful", as a whole, is a stretch.  It has done well.  The sky is certainly not falling, no matter how much one opines that it is, and that this move has "underperformed" just to shove it in Lasseters face.  And no matter how much one waxes poetic that this movie is proof positive that Pixar was overpaid for, that Pixar is not "the golden goose", or that Pixar is anything other than a quality aquisition putting out profitable products.

And to try to point to it as any sort of justification that Disney overpaid for Pixar is not only shaky ground to stand on, it's just plain ludicrous.  If Pixar churned out, for the next 20 years, films that grossed triple their production budget every year, and sold merchandise like gangbusters, and have a built in HUGE DVD market, and so on and so on and so on, Disney would be quite pleased I'm sure.  Market analysts? Who knows. They're a fickle lot.

"I don't think it's cause to point and say the sky is falling."
Put it this way, if Disney expected it to make $300m overseas, would it make any difference? At the end of the day, the number is the same and it is not very good no matter which way you spin it. And do you think Disney expected it to make this much overseas? Because I can't picture Bob Iger telling his staff, "Well, it's going to make less than Pixar's last 4 films overseas... but I'm okay with that."


"In many countries (France, Spain, Taiwan) the movie is already doing as well, or better, than Monsters Inc (at least according to boxofficemojo)."
Let's eliminate Taiwan all together as 900k really isn't going to help it much. Now how is your view any less biased than mine. I can point out that Cars lags behind majorly in UK (not to mention the world as a whole).


"And finally, add to THAT fact that it's going to face competiton from DMC (which has much broader appeal, particularly in the foreign markets) because, in many foreign markets, they're opening close to the same time"
That is NO excuse at all. Monsters Inc went up against Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (3rd biggest worldwide film ever) and Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings. Nemo went up against Curse of the Black Pearl & Matrix Reloaded (did very well overseas). They didn't seem to have a problem attracting a big audience.


"When you know you're comparing a relatively "young" film in the foreign market, who's barely tapped the foreign market with the largest traditional gross (the UK) with films that have completed their foreign run long ago?"
Opened recenty != A lot of money left. In many of the terratories it opened in just weeks ago, it is basically done. Two weeks ago, Cars made $3.5m in the UK. I wouldn't expect more than $10-15m more there. And many of the other countries it's practically done in (including here in the states).


"It's not that I don't have an argument to show you're wrong.  It's that I need no further argument to discredit you."
You can use that quote to say anything you want, but at the end of the day, the facts I present ARE true whether you admit it or not. Personally, I don't care that you think I'm biased. EVERYONE here is biased. If you have an opinion on the movie, your biased. Get over it!


"In any event, when a movie grosses approx 240 million domestically, and approx 137 million (as of 8/13) in the foreign markets, on a 120 million production budget, I'd call that  a win for the studio that made the film."
Let me give an analogy here. Let's talk about Pocahontas. That film cost about $55 million to make and made $350m worldwide. That's a film that made nearly 7 times its budget. Right now it's looking all cheery, right? But now let's look at the longterm affect. This was a sharp decrease from Lion King's gross. This was followed by Hunchback, cost $100m, made $325m. Okay, only 3 times the budget, but still good. Hercules stabalized making $250m while costing $70m. Mulan cost $90m and made $300m. Now if you ask most people when Disney's BO streak ended in the 90s, they'll likely say TLK. Even though yes, Poc, Hunch, Herc & Mul made well over their production budget, they just aren't viewed that way (especially since most of it was worldwide gross).



"If Pixar churned out, for the next 20 years, films that grossed triple their production budget every year, and sold merchandise like gangbusters, and have a built in HUGE DVD market, and so on and so on and so on, Disney would be quite pleased I'm sure."
Disney would, but would people like us? The films I pointed out above all at least tripled their budget but are not viewed as classics by the people. Disney sells loads of merchandice with Princesses, Raven, etc and yet the Disney fans in general aren't fans of it. Disney built a HUGE DVD market with Direct-to-DVDs and sequels and yet Disney fans hate it. So obviously that forumla doesn't always work.


"And have you finally seen Cars, AskMike? "
Yes, and I posted what I thought of it in one of the other Cars articles


"I can only join a several of the other posters to say that Iger (or someone from Pixar?) must have really "soiled" Jim's front lawn to bring the kind of ranting, fault finding, nit picking diatribes being posted here now."
Again, how about you read all of his articles instead of forming your whole opinion on this one. Most of the articles he writes are positive or neutral. You just need to look.

Thanks for again proving my point about your posts.

"Put it this way, if Disney expected it to make $300m overseas, would it make any difference? At the end of the day, the number is the same and it is not very good no matter which way you spin it. And do you think Disney expected it to make this much overseas? Because I can't picture Bob Iger telling his staff, "Well, it's going to make less than Pixar's last 4 films overseas... but I'm okay with that." "

Really?  I can see Iger saying just that.  Hell, Disney's done it before, with both domestic and foriegn gross with sequels.  So if you can't see Bob saying just that, in certain situations, you're being short sighted.

And again, if you expect something to happen (being relatively "weak" overseas) and it happens, I hardly think you can point to that and say "The sky is falling".  I don't know what Disney expected, for a number.  All I know is they expected it to be soft outside the domestic market due to it's subject matter.

"Let's eliminate Taiwan all together as 900k really isn't going to help it much. Now how is your view any less biased than mine. I can point out that Cars lags behind majorly in UK (not to mention the world as a whole)."

No, let's not eliminate Taiwan.  It's not about contribution to the bottome line, in my statement, it's about overall comparitive performances across the same markets.  When you look at many markets, it's doing fairly well when compared to other Pixar films.  Better in some, worse in others, MUCH worse in ONE, in particular (well, much worse in the sense that it's total gross to date doesn't approach the final gross of other Pixar films...3 weekends out of the shoot).

My view is less biased because I'm not perpetuating a viewpoint I adopted before the movie was even released, nor am I pushing any sort of agenda with it. I maybe giving an opinion, but it's one adopted AFTER I've seen all the facts I've been presented with.  Not prior to any facts being available.  There's a big difference.

You COULD point out that Cars lags behind in the UK, but doing so would ignore it was released only 2 weeks ago (well, 3 weekends, really). Or that it was actually released 2 weeks AFTER the DMC juggernaut.  Two pretty good reasons to have a lower gross.   It would also ignore that it was #1 at the UK BO again this past weekend (beating out Miami Vice, last weeks champ, and beating out DMC which dropped in at #3).  And that's quite the point.

"That is NO excuse at all. Monsters Inc went up against Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (3rd biggest worldwide film ever) and Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings. Nemo went up against Curse of the Black Pearl & Matrix Reloaded (did very well overseas). They didn't seem to have a problem attracting a big audience. "

Eh hem.  Really?  In the foreign marketplace?

Well, let's look at the 3 highest grossing foreign markets for Monsters Inc:
France: 17.9 million, release date 3/20/02.
Spain: 13.7 million, release date 2/8/02
UK: 53.3 million, release date 2/8/02

and compare them with Harry Potter:
France: 12/5/02
Spain: 11/30/01
UK: 11/16/01

I think it's a stretch to say a movie released 2 to 3 months earlier was much competition.

Now, LOTR...well LOTR further proves my point, actually.

LOTR:
France: 1/10/02
Spain: 1/4/02
UK: 12/21/01

So, Monsters Inc came out 1 to 2 months after LOTR.  With LOTR showing some signs of slowing.  It's actually a good showing of "protecting" their release, on Disney's part.  And, again, not showing much signs of competition.

So let's look at Cars vs DMC.  Again, we'll look at the top 3 markets:

Cars:
France: 6/14/06 13.2 million
Spain: 7/7/06  14.3 million
UK: 7/28/06 14.3 million

DMC:
France: 8/2/06
Spain: 8/11/06
UK: 7/7/06

Now, if you look at the BIGGEST differences in foriegn market grosses between past Pixar films and Cars, the biggest standout is how it has performed in the UK. Again, it's only been out for 3 weekends, so some of that gap may narrow. And I'm sure that part of it is the subject matter not playing as well to UK audiences.  But it's a drastic difference.  And lookie what it had to contend with...actually released 3 weeks PRIOR to it's release in the UK.  Circumstantial or not, I'd say that's some pretty compelling evidence.  I wouldn't say it's proof that the DMC competition hurt it, but I'd say it's certainly something that one would want to take into account.

"Opened recenty != A lot of money left. In many of the terratories it opened in just weeks ago, it is basically done. Two weeks ago, Cars made $3.5m in the UK. I wouldn't expect more than $10-15m more there. And many of the other countries it's practically done in (including here in the states)."

You're speculating.  It's back to #1 in the UK BO this past weekend.  What that means in terms of dollars, I can't find. But you're once again manipulating the facts to somehow support your bias....to paint the "worst case scenario" when you have no corroborating facts to support that being true.  The movie looks to have legs, of some sort.  What it's final gross is 10 or 20 weeks from now is anyone's guess.

As for other countries, I actually think there are some countries Cars has not even been released in (Italy, for example) or is in it's early run (the UK, South Korea).  In addition, there are many, many, many countries where films actually garner thier gross over a much longer period of time (look at boxofficemojo), so looking at any single weeks numbers are misleading if you view them like you view the US numbers.  So to insinuate it's "done" in the rest of the world, unless you have evidence to support it, is just plain speculation.

"You can use that quote to say anything you want, but at the end of the day, the facts I present ARE true whether you admit it or not. Personally, I don't care that you think I'm biased. EVERYONE here is biased. If you have an opinion on the movie, your biased. Get over it! "

Oh, I'm over it.  But lest anyone think your opinions are anything other than preconcieved notions based on skewed opinions using a very small subset of the facts, it bears discussion.

I don't need to "use the quote" to say anything.  It says what it says.  That you were biased against the film before it was released and that you will present only the facts that support the viewpoint you had attached yourself to at that point and ignore everything else. It makes your opinions pretty much irrelevant.  And you've displayed, above, once again your penchant for doing it.

As for not caring if I (or the rest of the commenters) think you're overly biased...well, that's obviously not true.  If it was, you wouldn't comment on it.

"Let me give an analogy here. Let's talk about Pocahontas. That film cost about $55 million to make and made $350m worldwide. That's a film that made nearly 7 times its budget. Right now it's looking all cheery, right? But now let's look at the longterm affect. This was a sharp decrease from Lion King's gross. This was followed by Hunchback, cost $100m, made $325m. Okay, only 3 times the budget, but still good. Hercules stabalized making $250m while costing $70m. Mulan cost $90m and made $300m. Now if you ask most people when Disney's BO streak ended in the 90s, they'll likely say TLK. Even though yes, Poc, Hunch, Herc & Mul made well over their production budget, they just aren't viewed that way (especially since most of it was worldwide gross). "

Your analogy is so faulty, it's not even funny.  The movies were successful, from an investment standpoint. AS succesful as previous movies? Maybe not.  Disney was still one of the top grossing filmaker for each of those years, though, so....successful enough for them from a business standpoint.

From a creative standpoint, maybe not so much.  Or at least not in many Disney fan's opinions.

But all that's a moot point, for 2 good reasons.  First off, you're not seeing a huge drop off from Pixar's last film.  At this point, it's about 10% from The Incredibles.  You could argue that it's a big dropoff from Nemo, it's other summer film, I suppose..but given the stature of that film (It was, until DMC, the highest grossing film EVER distributed by Disney), that's a completely unfair and unrealistic comparison.

But second, and more importantly, you're assuming a trend where there isn't one demonstrated.  You're assuming Cars is the begining of the end (or, maybe, that Monsters Inc was or maybe the Incredibles was...though I think you'd be hardpressed to get many to agree to that one...).  You're assuming Cars is the start of a downturn for Pixar.  You're assuming all that...based on what, exactly?  Certainly not on any tangible facts.  What you've done, by equating Cars to that string of Disney movies is create a logical fallacy.  A straw man, I believe.  One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

"Disney would, but would people like us? The films I pointed out above all at least tripled their budget but are not viewed as classics by the people. Disney sells loads of merchandice with Princesses, Raven, etc and yet the Disney fans in general aren't fans of it. Disney built a HUGE DVD market with Direct-to-DVDs and sequels and yet Disney fans hate it. So obviously that forumla doesn't always work. "

First off, equating Cars with the merchandise and direct to DVD sequels is a pretty big stretch.  No matter what your opinion of Cars is I think we can all agree it was of better quality than either of those things.  And, quite frankly, the Disney fans seem to be pretty happy (if the internet response is any judge) with Cars.

Second, one has little to do with the other (Disney Corporate happy vs Disney fan happy).  You're mixing (as you said you wouldn't) opinons of how good a movie is, subjectively, and now how good merchandise or DVD sequels are, with how financially successful those things are.  Two different things, entirely.  The Disney board of directors doesnt (and shouldn't) sit around making decision based on the Disney fandom's happiness.  Bob Iger does not, in his bed at night, worry about satisfying pilferk with his next big announcement.  They need to please the consumer at large, offer products they want, and maximize their profits.  Sorta strips away the pixie dust, but thems the brakes.  And by just about every measure, Cars has done just that.

Oh, and the films you pointed out above? HUGE in the video and DVD market.  HUGE.  So while they might not be viewed as "classics" (something which is an opinion, at it's very core), they sold very well....and were very successful for the company.

To clarify and modify:

"But all that's a moot point, for 2 good reasons.  First off, you're not seeing a huge drop off from Pixar's last film domestically.  At this point, it's about 10% from The Incredibles.  Yes, the foriegn gross has fallen off a LOT, if you compare final numbers to "numbers to date".  But that's not what happened with Pocohontas.  It was considerably weaker in US and the worldwide markets, not just the worldwide ones.   You could argue that it's a big dropoff from Nemo, it's other summer film, I suppose..but given the stature of that film (It was, until DMC, the highest grossing film EVER distributed by Disney), that's a completely unfair and unrealistic comparison. "

Askmike, are you Jim's personal PR man? I mean seriously, can Jim do no wrong in your eyes? Jim could write an article about how he wished Disney World would burn down, and AskMike would find some reason to defend him. Plain and simple, Jim is a Disney basher, maybe an insider for that other park, Universal... Anything to knock Disney down and praise others... Over the HEdge was praised here, and FAILED.. where is that article???? And you say Barnyard was a success after 1 week of being in the theater?? This thing won't even crack 50 million and you say it was a success?? What Barnyard pulls in TOTAL is less than CARS pulled in 1 week.... But cars is a failure and Barnyard is a success?? SCREW WALL STREET.. They don't know anything.... Cars was successful, even though it wasn't AS successful as previous movies.... So, if Pirates 3 doesn't break all the records Pirates 2 makes, will you call that a failure as well?? I know Jim will.... And Askmike will be right there defending his man....

//Yes, and I posted what I thought of it in one of the other Cars articles //

And could you direct me to where, exactly, these thoughts are?  There are many Cars articles, after all, and there are even Cars articles disguised as Pirates articles.

Never mind.  Found it.  Disagree with many of your points, but that's irrelevant, because I never really expected you to flat-out love the film, so I don't see the point in trying to argue over it.

Just to note- I'm looking on IMDb, and would like to mention that Cars still hasn't been released in the following countries: Lithuania, Italy, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Creece, Turkey.

Also...I'm wondering...how will Talladega Nights perform overseas?

I guess some of us here aren't the only ones to think Jim has been hating lately.  Over at mouseinfo.com last week they started a thread called "Jim Hill has officially lost it!"  I thought it was humerous and the thread states basically what I have been over the last couple of days.  That being that Jim went from saying last week that the Pirates movies wouldn't sail into the black for a while to this week changing his mind to say it is a phenom in order to rip on Cars again.

As for my first POST I have to say that after several years of veiwing this site and praising Jim Hill that I don't know what to think anymore.   I guess my question to Mr Hill is are you going to continue to bash the Pixar release of CARS in every story that you write about?   As far as Disney over paying for Pixar.   I don't believe that any amount should be considered too much.  The numbers don't lie $3,598,782,147.   7 Billion for a company that has only released 7 films and made 3.5 billion?  The weakest release earned over 360 million world wide.  Show us another company that even comes close to this record.  Not to mention that this brings in people with the simple skill of "Imagination".  Something that the Walt Disney Studios lost somewhere along the wall street road.

I'm asking you to please get off of the CARS bashing and return to the articles that made most of the people reading this site actually enjoy this site.  

>>SCREW WALL STREET.. They don't know anything<<

If you so smart, why ain't you rich?

I think I'm going to have to join the growing drumbeats, though, and say "That's enough about Cars, there, Jim."  I doubt that very many people care anymore, although the few that do can certainly be prolific when it comes to discussion board posts.  (Not to mention spending inordinate amounts of time researching box office returns to back them up!  Gee I wish **I** didn't have to work for a living . . .)

"Hell, Disney's done it before, with both domestic and foriegn gross with sequels.  So if you can't see Bob saying just that, in certain situations, you're being short sighted. "
1) How many sequels have premiered under Iger's leadership?
2) How many has he greenlit?
There's not much he can do with films already in progress.


"I'm not perpetuating a viewpoint I adopted before the movie was even released."
So you are telling me that before the movie came out, you weren't excited to see it? You didn't think it was going to be good? You didn't expect to like it? You didn't want it to do good? Because if you did any of that you are "perpetuating a viewpoint before the movie was released."

"but doing so would ignore it was released only 2 weeks ago (well, 3 weekends, really). Or that it was actually released 2 weeks AFTER the DMC juggernaut."
Here are some straight-out stats. And heck, even Chicken Little did better in its 2nd weekend there.
Cars 2nd UK weekend: $3.5
Finding Nemo 2nd UK weekend: $9.9
Incredibles 2nd UK weekend: $8.1
Monsters Inc 2nd UK weekend: $8.2
Chicken Little 2nd UK weekend: $3.8
Ice Age 2 2nd UK weekend: $6.3
Over the Hedge 2nd UK weekend: $4.0 (despite going against DMC's $25.4m opening weekend)
Wallace and Grommit 2nd UK weekend: $8.3
Madagscar 2nd UK weekend: $5.7
Shark Tale 2nd UK weekend: $5.8
Shrek 2 2nd UK weekend: $12.9

(And Keep in mind that those 3 other Pixar films all opened with at least $10m while Cars just opened with $4.5.) And just to avoid making this post longer than it has to be, yes, I messed up with HP & LotR. I was reading the wrong country. But I still don't see DMC as a big hit (hit, as in hurting Cars). It's like when people blame Superman Return's disappointment on DMC. No, SR did poorly before DMC ever came out. Now Cars came in on Pirates' 4th weekend (and almost failed to beat it). That's 3 weeks people had the chance to see Pirates so I'm guessing it was at least 2/3 repeat business.


"And that's quite the point."
That's the point that besides DMC (which was in its 6th week in the Uk this past weekend) there really isn't any other good films out in the UK right now.


"It's back to #1 in the UK BO this past weekend.  What that means in terms of dollars, I can't find."
Well, Pirates made $2.3m this weekend in the UK. Cars made $4.5 in 38 different territories this weekend. Using that information, I'd guess it made around $2.5ish in the UK.


"So to insinuate it's "done" in the rest of the world, unless you have evidence to support it, is just plain speculation."
And to insinuate it's going to make a lot more overseas is also plain speculation.


"You will present only the facts that support the viewpoint you had attached yourself to at that point and ignore everything else"
Your doing the same thing. Only showing the "it's doing good" points is no different then the bad.


"At this point, it's about 10% from The Incredibles.  You could argue that it's a big dropoff from Nemo, it's other summer film, I suppose..but given the stature of that film (It was, until DMC, the highest grossing film EVER distributed by Disney), that's a completely unfair and unrealistic comparison."
I'm using Incredibles as the Pocahontas & Cars as the Hunchback (which I guess makes Ratatouille Hercules). And it doesn't matter whether that is fair. I believe TLM was the biggest Disney movie at its time. BatB came out and beat TLM. Aladdin came out and beat BatB. Lion King came out & beat Aladdin. Was it unfair to think Pocahontas would beat TLK based on that trend? Let's move it to Pixar. Toy Story 2 was beaten by MI which was beaten by Nemo. Incredibles didn't beat Nemo but had a larger opening weekend. Was it unfair to think Cars should do better? Probably not realistic to think that it would beat Nemo. But at least Incredibles, MI or TS2.


"You're assuming Cars is the begining of the end"
No, what I'm saying is that every studio has it's upswings and downswings. No studio is made of gold, Pixar included. They'll rebound. Although I don't expect Ratatouille to do amazing numbers (unless it moves its release date), the trailer certainly looks better & I expect it to do better than Cars.


"First off, equating Cars with the merchandise and direct to DVD sequels is a pretty big stretch."
You talked about a "HUGE DVD market" and so did I. Different titles, but same thing.


"No matter what your opinion of Cars is I think we can all agree it was of better quality than either of those things."
I'm not going to generalize here. Although I do think it was better then D2DVDs like Cinderella 2, Hunchback 2 & TLM 2, I thought both TLK sequels were better as was the 2nd Aladdin sequel. Animation wise, I would never deny the beauty. Minus the character design (which I completely disliked), I thought the animation in Cars was the best I've ever seen. The scene where Lightning & Sally were driving (with the waterfall) I thought was both stunning & beautiful. Now I'm not going to bother comparing the animation because A) Pixar had a much bigger budget & B) One uses CGI while the other is traditional animation. In the more recent D2DVDs (Brother Bear 2, TLK 1.5, Tarzan 2, etc) I felt the animation was just as good as the original for the most part.


"Oh, and the films you pointed out above? HUGE in the video and DVD market.  HUGE.  So while they might not be viewed as "classics" (something which is an opinion, at it's very core), they sold very well....and were very successful for the company."
Yes, I agree, but it's all about perception. A film that costs $100m to make, makes $70 stateside, $100 worldwide and then an equal #s for BO & merchandice generally won't be viewed as a success (even though it made over 4 times its budget). It's about the perception (which is mostly based on the US gross, unless the international total is so outstanding). And just as a side note, I loved all those 90s films (my favorite is Hunchback).


"I mean seriously, can Jim do no wrong in your eyes?"
I don't defend any single person. I defend what is right. If you look through JH's various articles you'll see that I agree with him on some and flat out disagree with him on others.


"Plain and simple, Jim is a Disney basher"
Again, perhaps if you read some of his non-Cars articles, you'll see that simply isn't true


"This thing won't even crack 50 million and you say it was a success??"
Great job at taking out relativity. Barnyard, a small Nickelodeon film with virtually no advertising outside of Nickelodeon that people expected to make next to nothing (especially after Ant Bully bombed), surprised all by bringing in so much every weekend (and having very small drops). Cars on the other hand was a huge Disney/Pixar film which people expected to make a lot.


"So, if Pirates 3 doesn't break all the records Pirates 2 makes, will you call that a failure as well??"
Pirates 3 is already a huge success no matter what. Pirates 2 will end it's worldwide run right around the $1 billion (yes, I said billion) mark. Box Office rule states that a film must double it's budget. At most, the two films cost $600m to make and market (though I expect it somewhat less). That means that after the first week, everything Pirates3 makes will be pure profit.


"Also...I'm wondering...how will Talladega Nights perform overseas?"
Barring any surprises, I don't see it doing well at all. Besides the NASCAR effect which should hurt it, the World outside the US does not like Will Ferrell a whole heck of a lot. They shunned him in Anchorman and Old School & barely gave him a nod in Elf & Bewitched.


"I guess my question to Mr Hill is are you going to continue to bash the Pixar release of CARS in every story that you write about?"
Again, do all of you just ignore his other articles? In the past month, he's written about Dragons/Bunnies, Terrorism, Weddings, Pirates, Meet the Robinsons, SIGGRAPH/DMC, SIGGRAPH/Robinsons, Expedition Everest, Matt Ouimet, Imagineering Staff Cuts, Steve Jobs & Lady in the Waters. In fact, in the past month, he's written a total of 3 articles on cars (and two of them were doubled with DMC). Maybe you guys don't get it, so I'll say it louder. TWO ARTICLES about CARS in ONE MONTH.



"Show us another company that even comes close to this record."
Well, most other companies (with the notable exceptions of Dreamworks and the brand new Weinstein Company) have been out for decades. With the exception of Fantasia, weren't Disney's first 6 films all successes?

In a minor correction to my above comment, the all caps sentence should say "THREE ARTICLES about CARS in ONE MONTH." :)

Jim seems to blatantly ignore the fact that The Incredibles earned considerably less in both the domestic and overseas markets than Finding Nemo. Where were all your pitchforks and nooses when THAT film was released?

Even if Cars is a disappointment, which is really a self-infliction caused by ridiculously high expectations (the key word is EXPECTATIONS) from investors, why is it such a big deal? Cars still earned a lot more money than the other 3-D films of 2006. Nobody is going to talk about how much trouble Warner Bros. is in for Ant Bully's failure (which Jim DID discuss only two and a half weeks ago)? What about the growing apathy towards 3-D films in general, since so many films are plagarizing each other and being released at the same time? (Interestingly, this isn't reality TV we're dealing with.)

Is all that less important than gossip on people who can't accept their own mistakes on Cars' "underperformance"? Think about it.

Said Captain Jack to Askmike:

"You need to get yourself a girl, mate."

(Sorry but it had to be said.)
 
Put this one to bed and agree to disagree.  Let it go man.  Let it go.

"Nobody is going to talk about how much trouble Warner Bros. is in for Ant Bully's failure (which Jim DID discuss only two and a half weeks ago)?"
1) Those Ant Bully articles were written by ROGER... not Jim.
2) WB is in so much trouble, just not entirely because of AB.
-Superman Returns has the biggest budget+marketing ever and yet only manages to make $350m-ish worldwide (likely won't pass $200m stateside)
-Poisden crashed and burned (cost $160m to make, barely crossed that mark worldwide)
-Ant Bully bombed
-Lady in the Water did very poorly (especially compared to M. Night's other movies)

The only minor success they've had this year is V's for Vendetta. Of course, WB is lucky enough to have the HP series. And Disney has the same downtimes as WB has (like the year they showed HotR, Around the World in 80 Days, Alamo & Hidalgo). But lucky for Disney, they almost always rebound at the end of the year. Will WB? We'll find out.
3) And just as a minor thing, films like Cars are CGI, not 3-D. Monster House & Chicken Little were shown in 3-D, but Cars wasn't.

"Put this one to bed and agree to disagree.  Let it go man.  Let it go."
Seriously, when do I ever let things go? :)

"Pirates 3 is already a huge success no matter what"

Huh?

Are you serious.  A film that hasn't even come out yet and we don't know what kind of numbers it will do is already a success.  And no matter what.  Come on ask mike doesn't that indeed play contrary to your "if the next film doesn't do as good as the last past one that's not good" idea, and seem extremely biased.  And ask mike what is your opinion on that ridiculous Pirates article of Jim's last week?

Yes I know that Pirates 2 made a lot of money that might help pay off some of Pirates 3, but it seems to me you're saying that the trend upwards matters more than the money.  And if its the money thats important lets be honest Cars is making money for the company.

Look at Disney's stock, look at their third quater report in which they specifically show what Cars brought in, and look at the merchandise.  This along with DVD, rentals, ect. to come.

What I find interesting ask mike is you aren't staying with your argument.  You're jumping from money, to quality, to trends, ect.  It seems like you can't stabalize your argument for one so you jump to another.

I also take myself as a serious animation buff and if you can't see much difference in the quality of animation from an original Disney studio animated production vs. a direct to video you'd have to be delierious.  I mean yes the animation has gotten better on the direct to dvd but there is still a BIG difference.

Also is Dreamworks on its way down now to since there last few CGI films haven't made what the Shrek movies did?

Also Disney's animated features following Snow White did not make as much as Snow White did.  Did this mean the company was on a downward trend even though these film made a lot of money (again except for Fantasia which took years to make its money back).

What is your argument really about then ask mike?  Because really nobody is arguing that Cars didn't make as much as the past Pixar films but to assume they are now on a downward trend or that Cars isn't making a lot of money is ludicrous and there is just not any evidence to support it.

"Are you serious.  A film that hasn't even come out yet and we don't know what kind of numbers it will do is already a success.  And no matter"
Like I said before, DMC is going to end up at about $1b. The total the two movies have to make to break even is $1.2b (using the high-end $600m number). That means that after AWE makes $200m, everything will be profit (ie, everything after the first week). Let's say AWE only makes half what DMC makes. That would still equal a solid $300m in profit. So yes, no matter what it is a success (unless it completely bombs....but if it does that I will post here that I am a complete idiot).


"And ask mike what is your opinion on that ridiculous Pirates article of Jim's last week?"
I thought a lot of what he said was rediculous. He was wrong with the triple-budget (it only has to double its budget) & he's likely wrong with the Theater-Studio percentages (BoxOfficeMojo says that a studio will receive about 55% of the revenue). And like I said the whole thing was utterly rediculous as AWE is *almost* guaranteed to make between $300m & $800m in pure profit.


"It seems like you can't stabalize your argument for one so you jump to another."
I'm not jumping anywhere. When someone comments on quality, I am going to reply about quality. If someone comments about trends/numbers, I'm going to reply with trends & numbers.


"I also take myself as a serious animation buff and if you can't see much difference in the quality of animation from an original Disney studio animated production vs. a direct to video you'd have to be delierious. I mean yes the animation has gotten better on the direct to dvd but there is still a BIG difference."
Really....Go to
http://micechat.com/forums/showpost.php?p=498745&postcount=25
and look at the pictures. Now personally, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between those two Bambi pictures. I can tell the ENG pics apart, but that's just because I know the first didn't happen in the original. TLK1.5 also had (imo) nearly as good animation as the original as does BB2 (based on the trailer at least).


"Also is Dreamworks on its way down now to since there last few CGI films haven't made what the Shrek movies did?"
The difference between Dreamworks & Pixar is everything. While Pixar was/is a consistant blockbuster maker, Dreamworks was just a one-hit-wonder. I mean, let me name some of their failures/disappointments. Prince of Egypt, Antz, Sinbad, Spirit, Shark Tale, Road to El Dorado & Over the Hedge. Their only flat-out-success is the Shrek franchise & they had a minor blockbuster with Madagascar. Dreamworks was never on their way up. Their success is built almosted entirely on Shrek (while Pixar's is based on all their movies).


"What is your argument really about then ask mike?"
All too many people think Pixar is a god-like studio. That they are above the law. I mean they already have the MPAA in their pocket (Cars should have gotten at least a PG and if Incredibles was live-action, it would have gotten a PG-13--with the suicide, car chase/gunshot scene, adultery, etc). If one of their movies does disappointingly at the BO, people just shoo it away like it doesn't matter. Cars makes about $400m, everyone's alright with it. Chicken Little makes just $75m less (despite premiering during school & facing HP4, Narnia & Kong, which made about $200m more than the DMC+SR combo) and everyone acts like it's the worst BO in the world. Both made over double the budget. Tell me, how does $75-$100m change "it's doing great at the BO" to "it's doing horrible at the BO?" If Chicken Little did horribly, then Cars is doing poorly. If Cars is doing great, CL did good. But no, because its a Pixar film, people can just set that aside.

Is Cars doing good domestically? Yes. It'll end its run right around $240m. Which is good for any film.
Is Cars doing great domestically? Not as much. It'll likely end up doing less than Pixar's last 3 or 4 movies.
Is Cars doing good internationally? No. The world is just not embracing this movie.

Pixar is no longer getting any freebies. Thanks to the increase of bad CGI flicks (Doogal, Ant Bully, Barnyard, Valiant, The Wild, etc), Pixar is going to have to work hard to get big numbers now. Frankly, I only see two animated movies that are almost guaranteed to make a lot of money.... Shrek & Toy Story. And that is mostly because those franchises are no longer viewed as "a CGI movie" but rather as "a Shrek movie" or "a TS movie." Just my opinion though.

Thank you ask mike I for the things you admit and your explanations.  Honestly, I liked the response to my post.  I've been saying for awhile too that the CGI flicks are too much and yes Pixar will have to stay on top of their game to continue to have the success they've had.

I also agree with you about the international box office of Cars.  It is disapointing but when I look at what "Over the Hedge" did and what "Superman Returns" is doing (yes I know it still has markets to open in still) not many movies other than Pirates are doing well over seas.  Garfield 2 is also doing very poorly and this with a setting in England and with the first doing so well overseas.  In the end, Pirates is just dominating the international box office and no one else is even close.

I still strongly disagree with you on the direct to video animation as I watch and see them all.  Maybe because I am such an animated geek I notice more than the normal joe but to me they aren't even close.

I still disagree too that a movie that hasn't come out, hasn't made any money yet, and we know nothing about is a success.  Yes, no doubt it will make money for the company, but how much and how much compared to Pirates 2 (big question considering it opens in the same month as Spiderman and Shrek 3) and how good will it be.  So I agree if you mean successful in that it will produce profits for the company, but if we're talking about comparing its numbers to Pirates 2, how it will do against its competition, or quality I think it's better to wait and see.

By the way ask mike.  Loved both Cars and Pirates 2.  Also love the Hunchback and yes Chicken Little got both the Disney Fan and critical shaft simply because I believe they were having issues with Pixar at the time.  By no means a classic, but Chicken Little was fun and was a moneymaker.  Also can't wait for both Pirates 3 and Ratouille.

"but if we're talking about comparing its numbers to Pirates 2, how it will do against its competition, or quality I think it's better to wait and see."
I agree. 2007 has more potential blockbusters then any year I can remember. It has the possibility of being the biggest BO year ever or the biggest dissapointment ever. I mean, you have Shrek 3, Spiderman 3, Pirates 3 (all who's 1 predecessor made over $400m domestically), HP5 (which has a good chance of crossing the $300m mark), Ratatouille, Rush Hour 3, Even Almighty (which all should/could cross the $200m mark), Meet the Robinsons, Ninja Turtles, Transformers, Enchanted, Fantastic Four 2 & Oceans 13 (which all have a good chance of crossing the $150m mark) you see how crowded 2007 is with proven & unproven blockbusters. In the battle of the big three, SM has the advantage of coming first (and having two weeks by itself), Shrek3 has the advantage of being the first new animated film since March's Meet the Robinsons & DMC has the advantage of coming last and having the 2nd movie fresh in people's heads. DMC is going to have to work hard to equal (or come close to) the success of DMC. And you are absolutely right, only time will tell. Given the cliffhanger nature, I'd be extremely surprised if it didn't open big, but it comes down to how long its legs will be. I guess I all can do until then is to wait and hope (and see it every day when it comes out). :)


"and yes Chicken Little got both the Disney Fan and critical shaft simply because I believe they were having issues with Pixar at the time. By no means a classic, but Chicken Little was fun and was a moneymaker. "
I agree. It was a fun (though not a classic) movie. There were both good and bad parts about it. And it really was a bad-timing film no-win film. People were still angry about the whole Disney-moving-to-CGI thing (which is quite silly since just a few months later a 2D film would be announced), we were at the peak of Pixar-leaving-Disney thing & Eisner was not yet gone for 2 months (not to mention that little movie called Harry Potter 5 that came out just 2 weeks later followed by Narnia & Kong).


"I still strongly disagree with you on the direct to video animation as I watch and see them all.  Maybe because I am such an animated geek I notice more than the normal joe but to me they aren't even close."
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. But I do have a feeling that with Iger, Catmull & Lasseter around now, there will be much less D2DVD sequels. And the ones they do make (I can't see them stopping all together) will be like the more recent ones.


Glad we can agree and disagree without turning this into an "I'm right your wrong" argument.

HOORAY FOR 100 POSTS OF POINTLESS BITCHING!!!!!

&lt;i&gt;First up, Jim Hill offers some corroboration of his Wall-Street's-initial-financial-projections-has-been-having-a-negative-impact-on-Hollywood's-attitude-toward-this-year's-crop-of-top-grossing-films theory. Then Jim goes on to talk about Mickey's

&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

&lt;i&gt;Jim Hill finally answers some of the more pressing questions that JHM readers have. Like what does Jim really think of &quot;Cars&quot;? And why does this site keep taking pokes at Pixar? (WARNING: This article does contain a few minor &quot;Pirates&quot;

First up, Jim Hill offers some corroboration of his Wall-Street's-initial-financial-projections-has-been-having-a-negative-impact-on-Hollywood's-attitude-toward-this-year's-crop-of-top-grossing-films theory. Then Jim goes on to talk about Mickey's plans