Jim -- I would argue that it is going to be difficult keeping your faithful readers when you keep attacking us.  The way you write about how we debate your facts is as though we are so utterly stupid that we are unable to make a simple utterance without beginning it, "but but but..."

I think that you simply giving an actual review of the film Cars might go a long way toward allaying your readers' concenrs.  Jim -- just write a one paragraph article about the movie itself -- not the gross of it.

I don't know if you have a vendetta against Lasseter or not.  I don't really care.

I don't know if you've thought about it, but a lot of those extra hits you're getting are probably from people coming back to see the mudslinging going on in your forums, not necessarily NEW and VALUABLE readers.

I'm sure AskMike will come on soon with his usual apologist bent toward you.  Bring it, Ask Mike.  Bring it.

This site has divided into two factions -- normal people who want to know where your motivation to attack your readers is coming from (and also if you have a personal issue with the film Cars), and you and AskMike, who constantly talk down to the rest of us as if we were complete and total morons.

I'm holding you to task for this Jim (and you, too, AskMike).  Why do you treat us like redheaded stepchildren?  And please, praytell, give us your own honest to goodness review of Cars that doesn't involve its box office.  How hard can that be?

Paragraph 2 should say "concerns," for the grammar Nazis...

Jim, I have been a fan of your site for quite a few years now. I never write comments and I never send E-mails expressing my thoughts about what you write because you have a right to write what you want on your own site. However, this past article is the last straw for me. As my first comment as a longtime fan of you and your site, I am writing in to tell you just how much faith I lost in you. I get your point about "Cars" not being a success. I understand and to some degree, agree that it wasn't a big success like it was projected to be.

What bugs me here is that you, knowing that some people don't agree with you is bothering you. It's causing you to talk down to everyone like we're morons (as jimiscrazy stated above -- I agree with everything he said). I feel like you are trying to convert everyone to your religion (metaphorically). In my opinion you have become a spiteful unprofessional cynic. This is a blatant “I told you so” to all the people who “don’t get it” just because one other person in this world wrote what you have been writing all this time. Remember, this comment is coming from someone who understands and agrees with what you're saying. This isn't just sending out your opinion for discussion anymore. You're talking down to those who disagree and trying your hardest to change their minds. Worse yet, you're doing it to your long time biggest fans. Shame on you, Jim. Shame on you.

"Okay. I know. A lot of you have already had your fill of this subject. Particularly those of you who have had a hard time accepting the premise that I've been trying to float for the past few months. Mainly that a movie that's earned (to date) $239.5 million during its initial domestic run, making it the second highest grossing motion picture of 2006 (so far), could still (in certain circles, anyway) be considered a disappointment.

No matter how many investment analysts & reporters I quote from and/or pertinent stories that I link directly back to, there are still JHM readers who flat-out refuse to accept this premise. They just can't believe that anyone in Tinseltown and/or the investment community would ever actually think this way about this particular movie."
---
Yes, Jim.  It's all our fault.  We're bad...Bad, bad, bad.
<smackie-handies>
Bad ol' readers!

And please keep in mind:  NO ONE IS ARGUING that Wall Street was plain out of its loopy, inexperienced ol' head when it thought Cars would outgross Nemo, and then tried to blame other people (like readers, for instance), when they turned out to be wrong.
We're just asking which way the wind is blowing today:  -Was- it Wall Street's mainstream-newbie fault for overshooting the runway, because they thought all animated movies were the same, no matter what year they were released in, or are we to believe they're a harbinger of The Secret No One Dare Speak, ie., "Maybe it wasn't so good after all, so let's fire Lasseter!"

And until you can settle on one answer to that question and stick with it from article to article, quit turning the machine guns on your own troops.
I know the Jim Who Was Kicked Out of Disneyland is on the "Perecuted" High that accompanies a rampaging ego, but please keep in mind how much it doth profit a website to gain "new eyeballs" and lose its core-reader soul.

I don't normally make comments on articles, but I have to comment here on the tone of your article.  You're talking down to your readers, and that is the kind of attitude that most people hate about those in the media.  That arrogant, condescending "I'm right and to hell with the rest of you" tone grates on people more than you'll ever know.

So there are some stalwart defenders of the movie Cars.  SO WHAT!!  Is is really that big of a deal that you have to come out with yet ANOTHER article about the same subject over and over.  They've all essentially said the ssame thing," See!  I the great Jim Hill am right, and you are wrong.  It shows how little class you actually have as a person, and as a professional writer.  You should be ashamed of this article, and consider doing the smart thing and let the issue DIE!!

Bad form, Mr. Hill.  Bad form.

You may keep those "new eyeballs" with stuff like this, but the people who have been around for a while could quickly delete their bookmarks and move on.  And then maybe we could see how many "new eyeballs" there were, and how many of the extra hits were the same people returning to the comments section.

Insulting your fanbase is bad business.  And in some ways, it's like you tried to do it behind everyone's backs, thanks to Friday's post saying (and I'm paraphrasing) "If you don't like financial stories, don't come to the site on Mondays."  And then you pull this.

Yeah, I'm sure it's frustrating for you; people haven't exactly been kind to you since this Cars business has begun, but I'd like to think there has been a lot of justified (and sometimes constructive) criticism handed out.

But face it- there are people out there who like (even love) this FILM.  And they don't care about Wall Street; they see that it has made tons of money, has done insane business with the merchandising, and thanks to that, view it as a success on its own merits- not in comparison to a movie that came out a few years ago.

It's clear to me that you don't care about Cars as a film.  You only seem to see it the same way Wall Street sees it- as a product.

Film is a tricky industry, because there are simultaneously two bottom lines- an artistic bottom line, and a financial bottom line.

By only caring about the financial bottom line, and putting so much stock (no pun intended) in Wall Street's predictions and view points, it's possible that the artistic bottom line could start becoming dimmer and dimmer (and some would argue it already has).

Maybe we're weird because we don't really care about what Wall Street theoretically decides a movie should make.  But maybe we're right in thinking that maybe they don't know everything.  Maybe there are numerous factors that make a film "successful" to us, and we see that Cars is the second highest grossing flick of the year (amidst a field of flicks like X3 and Superman that seemed like potential box office titans), and that it has produced a merchandising bonanza, and that on top of that stuff, it was a good flick.  And that's enough for us to say that it isn't a disappointment.

Again, (even if he points out the "And its poor business overseas", despite our practically screaming in his ear "It hasn't even OPENED in half its overseas business yet!" the last article) I'm just not sure what the -point- that Jim is trying to personally vindicate his sacred honor on, here:
"Just you foolish people watch:  Wall Street will be wrong again, and -then- you'll be sorry, so there!"

What -exactly- is the point the Smarter-Than-We-Are Jim supposedly wants us to be chagrined and shaking in our socks about?  That:
A) Wall Street execs are blind optimists who judge movies like race horses and not like movies,
B) The movie didn't do as much business as somebody else thought it did, so they're must be something wrong with it,
C) If they're wrong and -think- that a company underperformed, they'll "punish" the company into bankruptcy with more bad jumped-to conclusions,
or
D) We may think a movie is good, but we can't predict the Big Business world, so there!...Nyeh!

Umm, okay...So, why the attack?  Seems like A) would be grounds for -defending- the movie's specific points (and hey, you're talking to the champion Treasure Planet defender on the boards, I know what these battles look like), B) would be taking the exact same sides as the "foolish" Wall St. execs that make such legendarily bad decisions as we're led to believe, and C) or D) would seem like fairly threatening scenarios to try and PREVENT.
Unless, of course...we were rooting for them to happen.  Because someone wanted to Told You So about a certain Pixar executive.

Look:  WE know Wall St. was wrong for being franchise-brained enough to think a movie would outgross its last one just for showing up, and apparently you do, too.  That's common ground.  Can we get that much through our thick craniums?
Does our saying anything good about the movie itself whatsoever somehow now make us "raving fanboys" who have now pitted ourselves against you to the last man, like rabid do-or-die Star Wars fans at a convention?
Or is the "We know what you're -really- saying" cause that readers take you to task for just too ingrained to give up on, so we must clearly be incensed by your Brave Iconoclastic Article--It couldn't be anything ELSE, after all!

To help fight back against this LUDICROUS (and frankly fairly damn nutty) notion that Jim seems to have about his readership, this officially exiles me from this site.

I'm done.

jimiscrazy said:
"I'm sure AskMike will come on soon with his usual apologist bent toward you.  Bring it, Ask Mike.  Bring it."
----
Not to play "divide and conquer" among the readership (which I'm sure would make Jim's current "persecuted" self-image very happy, that we're too disorganized a rabble to a threat), but an interesting micro-illustration of the larger problem:
Going by previous examples, AskMike would pompously pretend to be Voice of Reason and say "Now, now, people...He's just talking about the DVD."

And well, good point:  What IS this week's Mousewatch Monday technically about?
Jim just doesn't get up one morning and decide to take another swing at Lasseter, you know--There has to be some quote, or interview, or news-feed content on the PR wire circuit that generates the article to begin with.  Followed, of course, by "his thoughts" on What It Could Mean.

And what was this week's news headline, for August 21, 2006?:
- Disney officially press-releases Cars DVD for October,
- Announces wide marketing strategy for Wal-Mart and Target,
- Including exclusive bonuses such as toy-including packages, etc., at the major retailers.

That's the Feed....What's the Spin, ala JHM?:
- "Disney officially press-releases Cars DVD for October, and it's their last chance to pull this one out of the fire, before bad word of mouth and disappointed industry expectations could sink the company by the end of the game...Happened with Dreamworks, you know."
- "Announces wide marketing strategy for Wal-Mart and Target, but rotsa ruck, since the major retailers are too focused on a six-week quick-rotation bottom line to try and support a product that Disney's pinned their future on."
- "Including exclusive bonuses such as toy-including packages, etc. at the major retailers, and don't that look like grabbing at straws at the eleventh hour."

The News isn't the problem here, Jim....It's the Spin.  And it's doing EXACTLY what we've accusing you of all along:  When news isn't News, what is it?

I, personally, didn't feel talked down to when I read the article, and I'm a long-time reader.  I come to get the news, whatever it may be.  My comment is...
"Cars" will only be a 1-Disc DVD, so I'm wondering whether Pixar has a 2-Disc Collector's Edition in mind for the years to come.  That could make "Cars" more profitable.  I loved the movie and I don't care what kind of money it brings in (heck, I love "The Black Cauldron".  Enough said!).


~P.S.- Will there be anymore SIGGRAPH articles coming?~

I'm pretty sure the "long tail" theory doesn't apply to DVDs in big box retailers.  It fits better in situations where the storage and distribution costs of, say, 1,000,000 widgets isn't much more than that of 100,000 widgets.  iTunes is a good example of this, since the infrastructure costs of having ten bajillion songs available online isn't much more than having one bajillion songs.

Retailers have finite shelf space (to Jim's point), so the long tail theory doesn't really apply.  But, you know, I could be wrong.  ;-)

You know, I just don't get it. You just let us in on why you have been posting so many business type articles that most of us "core" readers are tired of. Fair enough, they get more site business. Great, I'm for anything that keps a good site up and running. So, it's Monday and I expect to read a business article. No problem, the site's free and if I don't like what I see I can go elsewhere. But, I don't.  I read it anyway because despite the business side of things being my least favorite subject, I do like to learn about it.  I figure today you'll open with an article to win us over to the new format. So, I can't quite fathom why for your first foray into the announced new format you choose to open with yet another CARS piece. It's the one thing we are sick of. We all get it.  It cost too much and didn't make enough money to be considered a success.  You've only told us this a few dozen (maybe an exaggeration) times. As a matter of fact, all your business articles are just downers. And that is what we are sick of, Jim. It's not that we don't get it, or just don't want to believe that CARS isn't the success the business world wants it to be.  We're just sick of reading about it over and over.  You have some twisted obsession with it. And with this article you are actually insulting your readership. Was it intentional?  Or are you just losing it?  Do you have some compulisive need for us to say "Gosh, Jim you were right, Cars wasn't a big hit!" Okay, fine.  CARS was not as profitable as it needed to be. But, the movie was a BIG HIT. It put butts in seats and took in tons of money.  That means it is a HIT. Having said that, it is just not a PROFITABLE hit. And this is where you screw it all up. All you keep doing is beating the dead horse over the fact that the movie didn't meet it's financial projections. It isn't the only movie this summer to do that, but it seems to be the only one you want to beat up and insult your readership with.  Get over it. Let's have a different subject each Monday where busines is concerned. And for the love of god, please finish some of those articles that we have all been waiting oh-so-patiently for, as well as the CD that we all already PAID FOR that is still not showing up. And don't insult us.  It's definitely not the way to get support for your site.

Jim,
It has been a good (mostly) run, but now its time to say good-by, M-I-C see ya round, K-E-Y, why because you don't want us anymore,  M-O-U-S-E

DarthMickey

Sigh...Jim, I usually admire your work. I even usually love the business articles because, like it or not, that's a major, major part of the film industry, but this? Smacks of filler. Not enough material to justify 20 paragraphs, so each half of the article repeats itself over and over (and over) again. Remember the movie "Summer School" when Chainsaw & Dave had to write a 200-word essay? They didn't come up with enough actual content, so the end of their essay was, "...and that is why we admire Rick Baker very, very, very, very...insert 50 more "verys" here...very, very much."

Seriously, that's the first thing that popped into my head when I read this article. The "I'm right, y'all are wrong, NYT says so, neener, neener" part? 1 or 2 paragraphs and be done with it. The actual article? If you only have 2 or 3 paragraphs of actual substance, either find more substance or write your 2 or 3 paragraphs and call it a day.

Someone upthread mentioned that unlike previous PIXAR releases since "Monsters, Inc.," "Cars" will only be offered as a 1-disc set. *That's* an interesting business-related story - Why? Will that save enough money to boost profits? How many potential buyers will be turned off, or will wait for the eventual 2-disc release? And...how many will keep waiting (like us poor schlubs waiting for a 2-disc "Lilo & Stitch" set) for something that may never come? And 1-disc or not, how many people will buy the "Cars" DVD on street date because they just want the movie & don't care about bonus features? How does PIXAR feel about the 1-disc move?

Wow, this pretty much proves that SOME of you guys either do not read all of Jim's articles or you just don't comprehend them. Jim specifically said in Friday's article that Mondays *WILL* be business articles (in this sort of style). You have absolutely no excuse to b*tch about the subject of this article. If you don't like reading them, DON'T READ THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is no longer a secret. If you don't like these type of articles, don't come here on Mondays. But if you do come here to read this, don't you have the nerve to complain about it (even though you knew what you were about to read).

I'm not defending Jim here, I'm defending what is right. Yes, he could have worded the article differently, but his poitn remains the same.l If this looks like I'm talking down to you, so be it. I am utterly sick of people coming to the board and complaining about these articles when he specifically said he was going to write them every Monday (as they bumped the traffic levels here). If you don't like these articles, just don't come here on Mondays. Al Lutz isn't holding you up to a computer forcing you to read this. You didn't have to pay a $25 subscription fee to read this. It is a free article written on a free site.

And jimiscrazy, I already gave my review on cars, but I guess you have selective reading.

"What bugs me here is that you, knowing that some people don't agree with you is bothering you. It's causing you to talk down to everyone like we're morons."
Let's turn that around for a second. In the previous articles, many of the users were extremely bothered that Jim didn't have the same opinion as them? These users resorted to attacking Jim. Is that right? Interesting that when people attack Jim it's okay but the second Jim makes a semi-controversal remark, everyone here is up in arms. To me, Jim's words are not of attack but rather of defense.

And if some of you feel the need to leave because you didn't get the concept of financial articles on Monday, so be it. Perhaps there will be less attacks now in the comments section. Some of you say you are longtime readers, but that does not equal longtime quality readers. Supposed longtime readers who resort to attacking Jim just aren't quality or loyal readers. Did longtime quality Michael Jordan fans abandon him during his baseball years? Are longtime quality Michael Jackson fans abandoning him now? Quality fans are there through good times and bad. And if I was a writer, those are the type of readers I would want, not ones who leave your site because they don't like one of your articles. You don't have to like all of Jim's articles. You can even complain about them. But to attack Jim & then say your leaving because you don't like 2 or 3 of his articles is just crazy in my opinion.


Now to comment on the article itself.... I think the store within a store concept is a good idea. I think Cars will have a good run on DVD (at least through November, before DMC arrives) the first time around. And then I figure in about 5-10 years, they'll be releasing a Blu-ray version (and of course an anniversary DVD), making it even more money on that front. But yes, Cars is going to have a tough competition on the DVD front. Just 2 weeks before, Over the Hedge is released. The week before Monster House is released. Ice Age 2 is released just 2 weeks later & after that is Pirates. And I'm sure Ant Bully & Barnyard will be released sometime then. Even with the competition though, it should do good.

>>Well, I guess I should have expected as such from all you die-hard "Cars" fans out there. You guys are just never going to accept the fact . . . <<

Jim, now you're just trolling.  MOVE ON.

AskMike -- First, I did not ask for a review from you -- I was taking you to task for what appears to be an un-ending defense of Jim, no matter what he does.  I do appreciate that YOU gave a review of Cars and I read it when you posted it recently -- so thank you for that.

If Jim is going to write "business" articles, he should at least keep it professional.  Treating dissenting viewers as though they "sputter" "but...but...but..." is not something I'd ever see, say, Walter Mossberg write in an article about Macs and PC's and that's one of the most polarizing subjects in journalism.

You see, AskMike, the guy who is supposed to be writing an analyst-type article is making it personal.  As readers with a forum just below the site, we are not held to the same standard.  Can we at least agree on that?

I think you offer some valuable insight, AskMike.  I think you're a pretty smart guy.    But you keep defending Jim, intentionally or not.  I would AGAIN like to re-iterate that I appreciate you review of Cars, which I read when you posted it.  So, let's PLEASE not make an issue of that.

Lastly, let's discuss some of the articles Jim COULD have written recently that are business-related that he really hasn't written about:

*Meg Crofton as new WDW president.
*Ed Grier as new Disneyland president (aka "Why did Matt Ouimet leave?")
*Tokyo DisneySea's upcoming 5th anniversary
*The launch of Disney Mobile

But no, we keep hearing about Cars.  I, too, am disappointed that it didn't pack more people into the seats.  I know that Wall Street wanted it to make at least $339 million and it didn't.  We ALL know that.  Jim needs to stop repeating it over and over.  It's old hat, dead horse, long in the mouth, etc.  STOP TALKING ABOUT CARS JIM!  PLEASE!

Jim -

You miss the point.  We Cars fans readily accept the fact that Wall Street was disappointed by the movie's boxoffice.  We just think that Wall Street is so bottom-line oriented that it wouldn't know quality if it got kicked in the a** with it.  Not meeting the financial community's expectations doesn't mean that we have to consider Cars an artistic or even economic flop.  Did it make money?  (I refuse to be disappointed because it only made $100million instead of $200million.  Of course, the way Wall Street counts, they would say, in that case, that the movie lost $100 million, right?)  I think we fans have as much patience with Wall Street as legend has it Walt had with them.  If Wall Street wants to pout, fine, let them to to their corner and count their money.  We'll stick around and enjoy the good stuff.

(Directed to jimiscrazy's post)
1) Sorry I misinterpretted your review statement. You said almost right after you mentioned me, so I thought that part was directed at me too.

2) Yes, Jim should have worded the article differently as it does contain a somewhat-condescending tone. However, was that the intention of Jim? Maybe, maybe not. Jim may not have meant it to come out that way. For all we know, we could just be misinterpretting what he said. Again, maybe maybe not.

3) While I do agree Jim should be held to a higher standard than us in terms of what he writes, that is no excuse for people here to attack him. Here are some attacks just from the previous Cars article...
"The negative slant....its getting pathetic"
"Jim really ... is this the best you have to offer us? If so, you've got problems."
"Do us all (including yourself) a favor, Jim, and abandon your tendancy to publish these ludicrous anti-Pixar rants"
"The horse is officially dead.  You can stop beathing it now."
"I am sorry, but Jim is a Disney basher"
"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." (okay, there hasn't even been 6 stories about this in the past month)
"Jim can write anything he wants to. It is his site. But can we please agree that enough is enough?" (AKA: He can write anything he wants.....except this)
"that's why he keeps writing the same old garbage"

4) I still find it amazing that people keep saying "he only writes these articles now" and yet over the past month, has written about weddings, dragons, bunnies, walt, terrorism, Meet the Robinsons, ILM gag reel, Expedition Everest, Matt Ouimet, Steve Jobs, Imagineering, Tower of Terror & Lady in the Water. But I guess those articles don't count. That's what pisses the heck out of me. Everyone just ignores that there were 15 non-financial articles posted between July 17th's Mousewatch & August 8th's Mousewatch. There were three between that and the next one & 4 between that & this one.



And just as an off-topic note, is anyone else having problems making comments here with Firefox?

I've been reading this website for a long time now, but I had to sign up today just to leave an opinion.  After being beat senseless by your recent articles I just wanted to say three words - WE GET IT.  You don't have to pound a point into us until we are all driven senseless by it. It only shows that you are heading the same direction as Disney - away from discerning, intelligent readers and down to the lowest common denominator.

Do I now sense a readership that is beginning to see this website as something of a joke?  Are you becoming the Bill O'Reilly of the Disneyphiles?  Is that rant of the day becoming the rant of the week (or month or year - pick one)? I know I'm beginning to think that I'm pretty foolish if I keep wasting my time here.

To put it in a language you will understand - this website is failing to meet all expectations.

The problem is that film costs and Wall Street expectations are rising just as the market is changing. The fact is that the DVD becomes more of a bargain as tickets and gas go up- especially when you're talking about a movie that the whole family goes to.

Now, out of curiousity... how many of you planning to buy the Cars DVD are going to do so online? It seems to me that's part of the problem. A sale is a sale is a sale, but regular retail presence allows for impulse buys from others. So buy it retail, help the first shipment sell out... Reorders in the box store system is what keeps up a regular presence for casual customers to discover.

Wall Street - Bunch of money grubbing morons that would think that Snakes on Planes is Shakespeare if it makes enough money.

Jim - Brilliant as always

AskMike - Needs to be writing the Monday afternoon article in defense of Jim's reasoning.

The thing that gets me is that the people who are the most irritated are the ones disagreeing with the facts.  Jim is just the messenger, leave the guy alone, in another year or so we are going to see the movie of when Jim was tossed out of Mouseland by the arch-villain Eyes-Near.  Produced by Dreamworks, it is a heart warming tale of a normal history buff (and man who is obsessed with mice) who takes on an army of minimum-wage drones to defeat Eyes-Near and put the hunchbacked lab assistant in charge of the company.

They are working on the script now.  Wall Street is already saying that it needs to make 250 Million to be a hit.

.......and then you think it is a good idea to attack him...........

......don't say you haven't been warned..........

The scene where Jim says that he is a season holder and just wants to have a fun day with his family while he reloads the double-barrel shotgun will bring a tear to your eye....

I just wonder what's going to happen to Dremworks when Shrek 3 fails to make $500 million at the box office. Wall Street will probably get Jeffrey's head on a platter.

(I'm also curious to see if this stays on MOnday, or will it slip into the rest of the week...at least Jim warned us this type of article was coming).

Am I missing something here?  I read the article above, and it didn't seem condescending at all.  It seemed to be a bit reactionary, but considering the babble on this forum, I am surprised the forum is still up and running.  Hey, it's a free country, and a free website, and you are free to write your wounded reader tripe all you want, but by the same strange coincidence, Jim Hill Media's staff can write whatever business tripe they want.  Which, in turn, makes a bunch of readers moan about how tired they are of reading it and how the website is going downhill ('failing to meet all expectations...' how official!).  This seems to result in another article about business and box office, which sets off the pack of wounded readers to their howling and railing against the author.  Maybe the circle could be broken if the forums would talk about something else other than their disappointment with the current direction of the website, which really seems to follow the direction of the news, which (believe it or not) Jim Hill and company do not control.  This particular part of the news seems to fascinate Hill, and that is his prerogative (as it is yours as 'eyeballs' on the site to read it or not, depending on your level of similar fascination).  Part of the appeal of Hill's writing for me was always that he reported it subjectively, whether it was about failed Disneyland parades or the New York Disney Store or the Save Disney website.  You didn't just get the news, you got the news as Jim saw it, and that is still happening here, and a lot of you are complaining about it.  I maintain that this forum was a bad idea because the readers should not dictate where the writing goes (that's what focus groups do, and that's why we get crap in the theaters most days), and with the behavior of some of the forum posters, it appears that some of you are determined to control the direction of the content.  Go make your own website if you want to do that, please.  But let Jim Hill and associates make theirs how they see fit, and if you don't like it, just go away quietly.  These dramatic 'I'm done' exit posts are pedestrian and unremarkable, and I don't believe them at all.  You don't like what you read?  Super.  There will be something else to read tomorrow.  You don't like that?  Move on, for your own peptic ulcers' sake.

Hi Again, AskMike! :)

1) I can see how you read that as such.  Again, my apologies.

2) Isn't there a saying about perception being reality?  I can't speak for anyone else here, but Jim just seems to be ceaselessly trying to change people minds.  It won't work.  I know that, I'm sure you do, too.  It's like arguing about WMD's  Facts don't matter in EITHER direction ;)

3) I guess that Jim's writing style has always bothered me a bit -- I know that he's got a life outside of this, but it's just so unprofessional to get into spats with nearly everyone -- Al Lutz, etc.  It's also unprofessional to write 3 out of 5 paragraphs of an article about how he was stranded on a connecting flight, or that he's tired, or that he's snowed in, or whatever other excuse it is.

4) I hope that you're not directing this one at me.  My only beef is with the business-related articles -- he won't stop talking about Cars.  I know that it's one of the studio's major MAJOR releases this year.  And I get it that it didn't meet expectations.  But one example -- Matt Ouimet.  AskMike -- read the article again.  He simply cut and paste the press release, made very brief commentary about Emmer or some other unnamed person replacing Ouimet and then never mentioned it again.  You'd think that the first African-American Disney park president would be big news, maybe even as big as a 4th article about Cars box office performance.

Disney is a huge company and there are a lot more business-related topics to talk about.  I realize that Jim (as well as his contributors) do write about more than Cars and it's box office.  It's just that this is starting to break down to a 4-year-old arguing with a 3-year-old.  No one's mind is going to change at this point.  I've accepted it -- Jim needs to, as well.

We get it that CARS didn't do as well as Wall Street wanted.  We get it that Jim has written other articles.  The difference is that Jim has been writing CARS articles since Cars has been released.  He never writes follow up articles about other things (Matt Ouimet, or the Walt Disney Studios President... hint, hint).  

What happened to the "business" articles about Over the Hedge's disappointment, Monster House disappointment, Ant Bully disappointment, Barnyard disappointment, how much does Dreamworks have ridding on Flushed Away, how much does Disney have ridding on Meet the Robinsons, etc?  Are we going to get the same articles when Flushed Away makes as much as Wallace and Grommitt?  What if Meet the Robinsons doesn't cross the $100 million mark?  What about how much Warners and Weinsteins have ridding on TMNT since their previous Animation failures?

AskMike... I understand there have been other articles written, but CARS keeps getting rehashed.  As a customer of Jim's site - in business terms, that is what all visitors to websites are, customers - I'm tired of hearing the same article rehashed over and over.  We get multi-part articles about over the hedge (dreamworks' lowest grossing CG animated film) and Ant Bully (only $23 million gross) with no follow up.  I don't know if there is a vendeta against Pixar, but it comes across as so.

Well, I don't know what everyone is upset about. I mean, the New York Times agrees with Jim. Isn't that enough for you? I mean, it's not like the Times ever published information that was just fabricated like that Jayson Blair guy did a few years back. Oh, maybe that's a bad example.
That wouldn't be fair comparing what the newspaper did a few years ago and comparing it with something recent. That would be like comparing what a movie company did a few years ago and comparing it with something recent. OK, maybe that's a bad example.
If anything, it's disappointing that the studio bosses quake in their boots when an analyst talks. The top studio guy wants his/her bonus which is based on stock price. Today's CEO's are usually hired not for their insight or creativity, but because they are "respected" by Wall Street. So when Mr Horn is asked if he is disappointed, he can't give the obvious answer - "no, we've kick started a dead franchise, the movie will be profitable, and the psychics/analysts predictions were incorrect." But that would show some spine, upset the analysts, the analysts would quickly cause that company stock to dive, leading to no executive bonus. Which means - the chances of you hearing common sense from Wall Street are pretty slim.

First, AskMike, it is possible to like these articles and at the same time not like to be insulted. We were told not to come here on Mondays if we don't like the financial articles, not don't come on Monday if don't want to be insulted. Not that I am saying that I am insulted here, but some day I am going to disagree with Jim and right now he is making it clear that when that days come I will be a moron. OK, so some people don't agree and some are attacking him. That doesn't make it ok to let that leak into his actual articles. Maybe he should look into starting a blog where he can make those comments. I wouldn't dare suggest he should start posting down here, that would probably be counter-productive.

That being said, Jim is repeating himself. He needs to explain WHY IT MATTERS. OK, so people on Wall Street start complaining that they paid too much for Pixar. So? Why does that matter to us and why does it matter to the Mouse? I am not saying that it doesn't matter, I am saying that Jim hasn't even tried to explain it. He just keeps yelling like Chicken Little that the sky is falling but I need to know why it matters that the sky is falling.

OH, MY GOD!

I just heard the most amazing news ever!
You folks are never gonna believe it!
Please, sit down and brace yourselves for this one......

here it is...
CARS DIDNT MAKE ALL THE MONEY THAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO!!!!

Yes, thats right!
You heard it here first, folks!
I should leave you now, to fully digest that stunning revalation.

"But to attack Jim & then say your leaving because you don't like 2 or 3 of his articles is just crazy in my opinion."

Two or three?  This is the fourth "Cars" is a disappointment article alone and I still stand by and am dumbfounded by the "Pirates" will not sell into the black for awhile.  These are five articles that really just confuse me.  And I ask again, if we truly are talking about MONEY and if Cars is making any, how can he not mention merchandise sells and get us figures there?

Jim said, "That these days in Hollywood, it's not enough that your film just makes a whole lot of money. Nowadays -- in order to be considered a real success -- your motion picture not only has to be a blockbuster. It also has to meet the initial financial projections that the investment community has laid out for that particular production) is -- in fact -- true."

I for one have never argued that Cars didn't make the kind of money walstreet or even Disney wanted it too, but to say it isn't a real success (making box office revenues, merchandising, quality CGI, future DVD sells ect.) I just can't buy because the dollar figures prove otherwise.

I'm not going to leave the site like others because I find reading these articles interesting.  I really believe these articles are slanted and don't regard that as ripping on Jim.  Almost all writers do it, and they do it for many reasons (to stir the pot, to influence people, to get personal feelings across, ect.)  It's entertaining reading, but I will let you know what info I think Jim leaves out and my take on the article.  I just feel in this case that Jim has found these Cars articles so successful that he might write one every week.

He's admitted that the hits and comments are the reason he'll continue to write these articles so I look forward to reading about Cars AGAIN in the near future (yes, sarcasim included):)

This is a cyclic thing with Hollywood.  I am no industry expert (not by any means) but the sequence of events (a few big-budget movies make big bucks, followed by a flood of big-budget movies that do okay, then followed by even more bigger-budgeted movies that end up disappointing the money people) is familiar, and ends up leading to retrenchment.  The last time I remember this was in the mid-nineties, when big-budget movies like Terminator 2 and Batman made big dollars, only to lead to an era of Jingle All the Way, Batman & Robin, Godzilla, and Speed 2.  Big Fat Movies that were spew and made investors think Hollywood was out of control.

One of many results: low-budget indy films came into vogue.

There is news here, but the approach to it (singling out Cars) has been mined throughly enough.  Jim, you're repeating yourself.

JHM.com wants to do business related stuff on Mondays?  I'm all for it, but get some ambition and find something interesting in your approach.  Need some ideas?  How about...

- is it time to go back to the Eisner theory of singles and doubles?

- a comparison of relative profitability between low-budget and big-budget "hits" (Disney and otherwise)

- some historical perspective on Disney animated films, like comparing/contrasting Cars/Incredibles to Alice in Wonderland's poor B.O. performance vs. Cinderella's (released within a similiar timeframe).  Expand that out to subsquent releases, as well as theme park presence.

- the idea of Disney animated films as evergreen products that are "timeless."  Is that accurate in today's media environment?  Can it be the case in a film that seems so locked into NASCAR of the mid-2000's?

Those may all be terrible ideas but I cranked them out in 2 minutes.  You gotta be able to do better than me!

Looking forward to more meat, less stuffing.  Can't wait for the rest of that Tower of Terror series.

Overall this was a pretty stupid column for JHM to write.  The tone was snide and obviously Jim has felt he was under attack from previous columns and he needed to reinforce his points.

Its too bad, because his early columns were  straight to the point and presented a very important financial view  of the movie's performance.

Now its just turned into  school brawl mudslinging by Jim and his readers.  

if i had my own website as my full-time job, my goal would be to make it succeed.  if there is a subject that consistantly gets more hits than other subjects, why would i want to not keep bringing that subject up?  it's a business, the purpose of a business is to make money, WE ALL WANT TO MAKE MORE MONEY.  if you don't agree with that, next time you are going to get a raise at work, tell them, "no thanks, i don't need it".

to use an analogy, it's like professional sports players.  i'll use adam vinatieri as an example (ex-patriots kicker, current colts kicker).  when he left the patriots to sign for more money with the colts, people said, "how on earth could he do that?  how could he leave his team he's been with for so long just to get more money?"  people forget that they are the same as us...we all do the same thing, it's just not under a microscope like it is for pros.  have you ever left a company to get a higher wage at a different company?  

my point is that, from a business perspective, it only makes sense to keep writing about a subject that brings in more money.

"I just wonder what's going to happen to Dremworks when Shrek 3 fails to make $500 million at the box office. Wall Street will probably get Jeffrey's head on a platter."
Shrek the Third isn't expected to make that much money. If it makes $380m (around there), most people (including wall street) will likely be satisfied. Unlike the last time, this time it faces very big competition (a highly anticipated SM3 with Venom, a hugely anticipated cliff-hanger AWE, a strengthened Harry Potter 5, a whole bunch of anticipated June films including Evan Almighty, Ratatouille & Fantastic Four 2, and some august films that will damper its legs including Underdog & Rush Hour 3). Shrek 2 built a lot of its money off of legs. The next major movie was two weeks away and was the diluted HP3 (and SM2 didn't come until a month later). Shrek 3 has a major film just weeks before and just a week after. But enough of shrek.....  :)


"I hope that you're not directing this one at me."
Nope, it was just a general statement (but I was having a lot of fun using the number system, so I just made it number 4 :) ).


"What happened to the "business" articles about Over the Hedge's disappointment, Monster House disappointment, Ant Bully disappointment, Barnyard disappointment, how much does Dreamworks have ridding on Flushed Away, how much does Disney have ridding on Meet the Robinsons, etc?"
Jim's likely not going to write about most of those because they have nothing to do with Disney. This is mostly about the mouse which means that although content is not limited to Disney, most of it will be. As for Meet the Robinsons, although it is definitely too early to talk about BO numbers (being that we have over 7 months left until its premier), Jim did make a couple of MTR articles just a few days ago.


"I'm tired of hearing the same article rehashed over and over."
And I'm tired of hearing people b*itch about that. Does that mean people will stop complaining? I think not.


"We get multi-part articles about over the hedge (dreamworks' lowest grossing CG animated film) and Ant Bully (only $23 million gross) with no follow up."
1) Ant Bully was written by ROGER and yes, there was a followup just a few days ago.
2) As for OTH, there was no follow-up, but then JH is not forced to follow up any of his articles.
3) OTH is not Dreamworks' lowest grossing CG animated film, that title would go to Antz (which made roughly half the amount).


"First, AskMike, it is possible to like these articles and at the same time not like to be insulted."
Again, being insulted is on your part, not his. You interpretted it as an insult, but obviously some people here did not interpret it as such. Could it be that you (general you) could be taking it a bit too personally? If Jim 'insulted' Eisner, would you get angry? If he 'insulted' some business-focused exec, would you get angry? How about 'insulting' a wall street analyst? I'm guessing you wouldn't get to angry at those. But because you think he's insulting you it's suddenly a big deal?


"Two or three?  This is the fourth "Cars" is a disappointment article alone"
So lets say there were 4.5 Cars articles (the pirates one was a combo with cars).

-Monday MouseWatch: How Disney plans to drive up sales of the DVD version of "Cars"
-$175 million? $200 million? $225 million? $250 million? $300 million? Which number will wind up being the real final pricetag for "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" ?
-Will "Cars" poor overseas performance & Silicon Valley's expanding stock options scandal eventually knock Pixar off its pedestal?
-MouseWatch: Disney's delighted with the amount of treasure that "Dead Man's Chest" has been hauling in, while "Cars" actual box office earnings continue to decline
-MouseWatch: Could "Cars" dwindling domestic box office clear the way for a "Monsters, Inc." sequel?

The first one was on June 20th & the most recent one was today August 21st. That's 4.5 articles in 62 days. That averages out to one article every two weeks. Is that really a lot?

Actually, there are two more negative articles about Cars:

MouseWatch: Excuses about as to why "Cars" underperformed
Can "Cars" crash through the $75-$80 million barrier?

I'm actually very sorry that I feel the need to continue with this subject.  Unless I see something that blatantly needs to be addressed, I will TRY MY BEST to stop replying.

There seems to be a consensus that you should go with something while it gets you viewership.  I seem to recall a show on primetime on ABC a few years back that did that -- it was called "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" and starred Regis Philbin.  I wonder what happened to it ;)

My thoughts?

I think that Jim misunderstands the point that most readers have been making for a month now. It's not that we don't believe you Jim, we just do not care. Do. Not. Care. Of course we believe that analysts are saying what you say they're saying. We can read the news reports. We just DON'T CARE.

So yeah you can really scream vindication and rub everyone's nose in your alleged righteousness but you're either being intentionally obtuse or completely lacking a critical reading of reader complaints over the last month because you've missed the point entirely.

I've kept out of it; I've been content enough to just roll my eyes at the articles and enjoy the reader comments. But this is just ridiculous. Not just that you continue to bang this drum, but that you so completely miss the point of anything anyone has said for the last month.

I haven't read the comment thread yet but I'm looking forward to it, just as much as I'm dreading reading AskMike's inevitable and increasingly shrill defense of the editorial deteriation of this site.

Mocking your readership is not the way to go.

Jim said, "Well, I guess I should have expected as such from all you die-hard "Cars" fans out there. You guys are just never going to accept the fact that this John Lasseter film failed to meet Wall Street's original expectations."

I don't believe I read many posts where people denied that it didn't reach expectations.  The responses were more that the expectations were unrealistic, and though numbers were slightly lower than expected the film would still be profitable and is overall a very good movie.

I found it interesting that the article he used for his argument from the NY Times stated nothing specifically about Disney or their films, but that his argument for today relied solely on this article.

As a note of information to a question a reader had, I have heard there will be a special collector's edition of the "Cars" DVD that will have more bonus features including the short "One Man Band" which looks like will not be included on the regular edition release.

>>The thing that gets me is that the people who are the most irritated are the ones disagreeing with the facts.<<

Not so.  Some of us who agree with Jim are now urging him to change the subject.

The truth is, Jim needs a real managing editor.  The content of this site, has taken a rather narrow approach to the topic, it's lost it's focus and now the overall quality seems to be leaning toward a tabloid sensationalism to get viewers.

On  top of that articles are now being positioned to feed the ego of Hill.  

"Actually, there are two more negative articles about Cars: "
I'm not going to count that second one because that debuted before Cars did (so he wasn't telling us it was a disappointment). The disappointment articles started with the "Excuses abound as to why..." article.

But even then that's 6.5 cars-is-a-dissapointment articles over the past 77 days. In those same 77 days, there have been (just by Jim) 28 other articles (and one of those was a positive Cars article). And of course this isn't mentioning all the articles written by Roger, Seth, Jeff, Lady F, Leo, Floyd or any of the other writers.

"I seem to recall a show on primetime on ABC a few years back that did that"
Comparing a TV show that was on air almost every day of the week with someone who writes 6.5 cars articles over 77 days is comparing apples to chocolate milk.

AskMike -- argh!  You've dragged me back into this.

Jim seems to have been against Cars since the beginning (meaning that first article about the $75-$80 million).  I agree that those numbers were representative of what expectations were.  And it's too bad that the film didn't make it.  And the overseas box office has been bad, considering that it drops its grosses below Ice Age 2.  I agree with you there.  But the tone of that article has been consistent with all of the articles since, which from here on out, we should refer to as "carticles." ;)

Please send me the link to the positive carticle, I don't recall it, but I certainly believe you :)

I was just being facetious with the Millionaire comment.  I agree again WHOLEHEARTEDLY that Jim does write other things, but he had put as much effort into converting people to the carticle way of thinking that as other topics he's never finished, he could have certainly completed his Light Magic, Star Tours, Muppets, etc. articles.

AskMike -- please understand that I agree with you and Jim that Cars didn't meet its financial expectations.  I'm not trying to argue with that.  I simply want Jim to discuss something different when he discusses the "business" aspect.   I don't want to come across as attacking you or anything.  I think you'd find that we agree more than disagree, I assure you.

Also, Mickey_Hal says it well: "I found it interesting that the article he used for his argument from the NY Times stated nothing specifically about Disney or their films, but that his argument for today relied solely on this article."

Jim is making assertions that make no sense.  Cars is NOT mentioned in the NYTimes article once.  Disney's practices and job cuts this summer are mentioned, but only as a possible sign of the times.  I think that these cuts were coming regardless of the performance of Cars or Pirates, wouldn't you agree?

Let's stop arguing with one another and just agree that until Jim has something NEW to say about Cars, that he cuts out the carticles?  I really enjoyed the dragon article, ToT article, etc.  I just don't want to hear Jim talk about how obtuse his readers are for not wanting to accept that a movie they enjoyed wasn't gangbusters successful, okay?

Please please please, AskMike, let's just get along :)  I'm totally serious :)

Cars is a hit, its not a hit, some think its a hit, others know its not.....bottom line: who cares?  Did you enjoy the film great...if not....fine too.  Why must the endless drivel continue in regards to this film?  And in all honesty, are new eyeballs really coming here to get the inside track on the business side of Disney/Pixar?  I mean really.....let us not fool ourselves.  Remember the "business" article about how Disney would no longer be doing Special Edition DVDs for their animated films?  Sure ya do.....which ended up being completely and utterly wrong.  All the "analysis" and "percentages" etc and in the end it was all baloney.......

I feel like I've read this same article every week since Cars was released. Seriously, why do we care? If Disney make a profit from the film, why the hell are they gonna care what Wall Street's expectations were?

""I'm tired of hearing the same article rehashed over and over."
And I'm tired of hearing people b*itch about that. Does that mean people will stop complaining? I think not."

We only complain because all the "business" articles, except the one about WB, are about how cars (and somehow DMC) are causing Disney to go bankrupt cause they didn't make billions of dollars.  There are other "business" news besides CARS and DMC.

""We get multi-part articles about over the hedge (dreamworks' lowest grossing CG animated film) and Ant Bully (only $23 million gross) with no follow up."
1) Ant Bully was written by ROGER and yes, there was a followup just a few days ago."

It is still Jim's site reguardless of who posts what articles.  All articles are a reflection of the site, not just the author.  There was a follow up, but not was much as how Cars is such a financial bust.

"2) As for OTH, there was no follow-up, but then JH is not forced to follow up any of his articles."

No he's not forced to follow up, but there is more about "business" of animation and hollywood besides CARS and the one WB article.

"3) OTH is not Dreamworks' lowest grossing CG animated film, that title would go to Antz (which made roughly half the amount). "

I forgot about that one, but OTH is still the LOWEST CG film in Dreamworks' post-shrek world.  Where are the articles about how Dreamworks' movies are falling?

"Jim's likely not going to write about most of those because they have nothing to do with Disney."

But we still get articles about how great OTH and Ant Bully are... regardless of who posts the articles, it's still Jim's site.

"This is mostly about the mouse which means that although content is not limited to Disney, most of it will be. As for Meet the Robinsons, although it is definitely too early to talk about BO numbers (being that we have over 7 months left until its premier), Jim did make a couple of MTR articles just a few days ago."

Yes, we did get a MTR article, but it was about how Bowler hat guy was spared the axe of mean, old Pixar.  If we want to talk about just Disney business, it is never too early to talk about how MTR has to reach $X or else it will be a huge bust.  Let's start comparing expected numbers of MTR against Chicken Little and *gasp* the Pixar movies.  

Did we get an article about how Chicken Little didn't reach the same gross as Pixar Movies?  No.  Did we get an article about how Chicken Little didn't make Disney any money?  No.  Why hasn't there been any articles about how other Disney movies performed this year?  Why must we only get "business" articles about CARS and DMC?... (I'm aware of the WB article)

There are a lot more "business" worthy news to talk about besides how Cars is a failure and how DMC won't make Disney any money (I'm still scratching my head over that one).  Let's just leave these two alone and talk about other films.  Let's all move on and talk about something else.

"News, reviews, history and commentary
about the entertainment industry
(But mostly about the Mouse)"

Whoever thought of this phrase for the site is a genious, because it really allows Jim and his partners to write whatever they want.  If they focus on "Cars" box office and don't mention Over the Hedge, Ant Bully, and others box office numbers they can say, "Hey we talk mostly about the Mouse."  And if they want to write 3 or more articles about the same movies OtH and AB before they come out to promote the movie they say, "Hey we talk about the entertainment industry too, come on"

It's a catch all.  Very smart.

Ahhhh. I get it now. The clues were there on friday. Jim points out that his numbers go up everytime he posts one of these "Business" articles. Just look at this talkback.  Look how much attention we are giving an article we don't like, that insults us.  Look how we type insessantly to protest.  All Jim has to do to rile us up and give him a reaction, making us respond and keep checking back time and time again thereby driving up his numbers is to write another insipid CARS article saying the same thing over and over.  We can't help it, we just have to keep responding. Smart.Very smart.  And I'm not being sarcastic here. I mean it.  I'll betch when Jim write the articles we really do like (And frankly that IS what he does the majority of the time) we don't respond as much.  They make us feel good and we go elsewhere. What we need to do is NOT respond at all to things we don't like.  Then we need to reponds like crazy when he writes something we do like. And let's not forget, it's Jim's site.  If he wants to develop an online persona who's jerk, he can. We can just avoid the site.  We don't have to respond. We can not visit the site on Mondays. So, it's really up to us. It's our fault Jim won't leave CARS alone.  It's still the best way for him to get numbers.  And sadly, that's what it's about.  No numbers no site. And like many of you I've followed Jim around because he has and does write some really great stuff.  So let's respond to THAT with more enthusiasm and just ignor the stuff we hate.  Then he'll stop writing it.

//And jimiscrazy, I already gave my review on cars, but I guess you have selective reading. //

Since I've seen you mention your review before, I'd like to point out: you posted your review on July 31st in the comments for a story that came out on July 17th, and many people don't go back through two weeks worth of stories to continue reading the comments, so there are quite possibly a number of people who never realized you reviewed the movie.

For those who missed it, it's near the bottom: http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2006/07/16/4219.aspx

//You have absolutely no excuse to b*tch about the subject of this article.//

Maybe I have "selective reading," but it seems like the majority of the complaints aren't explicitly about the subject, but about the tone that is adopted that insults and talks down to all of us who happen to disagree with Mr. Hill's "Cars is a dissapointment" stance.  And yeah, as I said in my first comment, there have been some harsh criticisms of Jim lately, but sometimes there can be something that can be learned from criticism.

Besides, this isn't the first time this angle has been played.  Remember when Jim posted the seemingly most negative fan email he could? (Don't remember?  It's here: http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2006/07/17/4219.aspx ) It's like he wants to make his detractors look bad in the article, regardless of how they articulate themselves in the comments, while making himself look better in comparison.  Because, after all, if they look bad, their point must be less valid.

//And if some of you feel the need to leave because you didn't get the concept of financial articles on Monday, so be it.//

Do you not get the concept that people are leaving because Jim Hill is blatantly insulting a large portion of his readership?

People aren't saying "A BUSINESS ARTICLE?  GRR!  NO MORE!"  They're taking exception to this "But, but, but" nonsense, and they've had enough.

//As a customer of Jim's site - in business terms, that is what all visitors to websites are, customers//

Now that's a pretty astute observation, and I've quoted it merely to draw attention to that idea.

""First, AskMike, it is possible to like these articles and at the same time not like to be insulted."
Again, being insulted is on your part, not his. You interpretted it as an insult, but obviously some people here did not interpret it as such. Could it be that you (general you) could be taking it a bit too personally? If Jim 'insulted' Eisner, would you get angry? If he 'insulted' some business-focused exec, would you get angry? How about 'insulting' a wall street analyst? I'm guessing you wouldn't get to angry at those. But because you think he's insulting you it's suddenly a big deal? "

Interesting philosophical point. Of course, the answer is yes, it is a bigger deal when the focus of an insult is yourself (or a close friend), and it should be. Getting mad about someone insulting somebody else is as stupid as forgiving someone for something they did to someone else. That is the problem with the most of the people posting here, they are getting mad about something that has nothing to do with them. They don't work for Pixar, they don't work for Disney. Why take things that Jim says about Cars, Disney, and Pixar personally?

I am not insulted because I understood that Jim Hill was really talking about the die-hard defenders even though he said die-hard fans. You can be a die-hard fan of the movie and understand that Wall Street wasn't happy. I am a die-hard fan of Dark City (along with Roger Ebert), that doesn't mean I will argue that it was a huge financial success.

My point above is just that I think Jim Hill needs to stop playing to the peanut gallery. A lot of people are "insulted" because they want to be. He needs to stop playing their game.

This is from the Blog Luxo:

In early 2007, a new attraction opens in Magic Kingdom that is a takeoff on the joke-filled Laugh Floor Comedy Club from Monsters Inc.

Where are the articles on that?  What is it replacing?  The Time Travelers ride?  Something else?

TikiBird73 -- Timekeeper is being replaced... :(

"Again, being insulted is on your part, not his."

That's ridiculous. The whole article (if you agree with it or not) was written in a condescending tone towards a group of Jim's readers. Whether he meant to insult them or not doesn't matter, many feel insulted. That means he insulted them. And frankly, I think that's really dissapointing to see. I would let Jim write 10 more Cars articles if he wants to, as long as he would write them more professionally. Yeah, I would stop reading them, but it is his site, and he can write what he wants (by the way, that doesn't mean that people don't have the right to complain. That's the whole point of the talk back, so that people can leave opinions, thought, and criticisms. The site's viewers should definetly have something of a say in what the want to see on the site). But please, no more insults. No more portraying those who disagree with you as stuttering idiots.

I really do love this site, and I've really enjoyed your articles over the years, Jim. That's the only reason I express my concerns at all.

Click on this link if you'd like to see a graph that charts the sites progress over the past 6 months.  

http://tinyurl.com/lmxhn

I feel this speaks for itself

Wow SuperGrover.  That chart speaks for itself.  Everyone should take a look at the chart.  The site has really lost some viewers and puch since earlier this year.  I hope these stir the pot articles aren't his long time response to the trend because it sounds like he could be losing some long time readers.

OK, it's Monday and here we go again.
Seriously Jim, it's time for you to focus on some other subject.  PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!

One of the reasons that makes me so disappointed in this financial focus is that I believe you are a student of Walt Disney's life and history. As such, I think you might want to revisit the story about Walt's allegedly one and only personal appearance before shareholders and the letter Walt read at that meeting.

I think that letter represents the feelings many of us have when it comes to Disney. The dividends we expect from the company are far more important than financial. We buy Disney stock to own a small piece of the magic and we expect our emotions to soar with a little pixie dust as we make memories and enjoy Disney films and theme parks.

I can't think of Wall Street without thinking of Oliver Stone's film and Gordon Geeko's mantra that "GREED is GOOD." Unfortunately it's this thinking that drives far too many of today's business decisions, including some made at the house of mouse.

As a stockholder, I believe there's more to business than making a profit. I believe Henry Ford, Walt Disney and other business leaders of the 20th century understood this.

But in today's world, fund managers, analysts, CEOs and some institutional and individual shareholders expect double-digit growth in every quarter without ever asking AT WHAT COST.  Why does Wall Street reward companies by driving up share prices after that film has announced layoffs or downsizing? Why do CEOs make hundreds of millions of dollars -- while the person who really makes the business work -- struggles for decent health care and retirement benefits? Why are the founders of a company always better than the corporate raiders who follow? Today it's short-term wealth -- damn the long-term health.

Part of what irks me is when some columnist or analyst tries to argue that GREED is GOOD mantra of the 1980s. That's all they're saying when they say something that makes a profit -- even if it simply ekes out a small return on investment -- it is not a success.  It might not be a success using their yardstick -- but their yardstick isn't the only one I look at, nor is it the most important guide to my personal definition of success.

Still, I get angry when I see the ROI argument used to justify bad business decisions. For example, take the end of the popular Disney magazine. It was admittedly profitable, but shut down simply because it's not making the empire enough money. That's silly and shortsided.

Marty Sklar tells a story that Walt only made a nickel profit on the original Disneyland guidebooks and was encouraged to raise the cost. He said no because he wanted everyone to buy that guidebook, take it home and show their friends, knowing that the guidebook was an important, albeit indirect, marketing tool.

No company can expect everything it does to be wildly sucessful ... that's left to fate, luck, fortuosity, kismet, the Gods and the power of the free marketplace.

What I want and expect from Disney is exactly what Walt would offer me ... a good show, a good story. I expect a company to do the best it can with the forces it can control. Walt did that. Lasseter does that. In this business model, quality and quality control are more important considerations. Spend the money, do it right, and the public will (eventually) get it. Not everything Walt did was successful -- and his failures, like the Disneyland Circus, are interesting stories in their own right.

Jim, it's not bad to point out that "Cars" or "DMC" weren't the sucesses Wall Street had expected, but is that really the question one should be asking?

One wonders if the analysts even consider all the revenue streams these films will touch -- we all know that it's far greater than box office receipts. How much money is Disneyland making with its Pirate mouse ears and other Pirates merchandise? Won't Mater, McQueen and the rest of the characters from "Cars" still be staples for children's clothing 10 years from now just as Woody and Buzz?

Now, as to your article about the "Cars" DVD, I think the DVD will do well through the holiday shopping season. Building special stores within Wal-Mart, Target and other key retailers is a good idea -- especially if Mattel gets its act together and gets more product to the stores. If the stores can keep the kiosks stocked with DVDs AND other "Cars"-licensed goods, it'll be great ... but I suspect the displays will quickly disappear because all the non DVD items sell out and are on back order.

I don't question your basic arguments about DVD sales ... I've read that 50 to 70 percent of the sales often come in the first two weeks. But, I will say that Disney/Pixar animated films are generally available weeks and months after their initial release at Target, Wal-Mart, Sam's Clubs, Costco, Best Buy, Fry's and elsewhere.

Finally, I'm disappointed that you're offering no specific info about the DVD release itself. There were several great iTune "Cars" downloads -- will those be part of the DVD release? What about the pieces filmed with John Ratzenberger at Pixar that ABC aired with "Toy Story"? What about the rumored "Ghost Lights" sequence with Mater and McQueen?

I'm sure that Pixar and Disney will give consumers plenty of reasons to go out and buy the DVD right away. And, I suspect, that many families who decided for personal or budgetary reasons to wait for the DVD release, will be SUCCESSFULLY ENTERTAINED.  I'm sure "Cars" and every film made by Pixar would have pleased Walt Disney himself ...

Actually, its apprarent Jim doesn't even care to write about Disney in a positive light anymore.  There really is a strong negative narrative in most of the articles he writes. It might be a simple case of job burnout.

There is only so much that can be written about the Disney company and attempting to do a daily column is quite an undertaking.  Unfortunately, I think Jim has peaked in terms of his depth and breadth of knowledge that is of interest to most reader.

I think he needs to expand and exam other areas of  the Entertainment Industry beyond Disney.

"What about the pieces filmed with John Ratzenberger at Pixar that ABC aired with "Toy Story"?"

I missed that airing of Toy Story, but I'm  big John Ratzenberger fan. Would someone mind telling me what those pieces were about?

I still don't see what all the fuss is about pertaining to this article, and I don't know if this statement should be on this thread, but my favorite articles, and why I started coming to JHM in the first places 3+ years ago was for articles such as these (which are some of my favorite articles Jim has ever done):

"The Chanticleer Saga"
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2001/01/01/306.aspx

"The Long Story Behind The Emperor's New Groove"
http://www.laughingplace.com/News-ID115140.asp

"Boags, Bears, and Mooses (Meeses?)"
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2002/09/04/262.aspx

"Your First Look At 'Home on the Range'"
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2003/10/05/151.aspx

I miss the behind-the-scenes, story-behind-the-story, making-of articles; that's where the majority of my interest is...just in case anyone wanted to know... :-)

Mickey_Hal said:
Wow SuperGrover.  That chart speaks for itself.  Everyone should take a look at the chart.  The site has really lost some viewers and puch since earlier this year.  I hope these stir the pot articles aren't his long time response to the trend because it sounds like he could be losing some long time readers.
---
And I'll make a few postmortem statements here as well:
Y'know that "What Disney character are you?" attraction at MGM's Animation Building?...It's a running joke with friends and family that three times out of four, I end up as Jiminy Cricket.  What worse is, they're right:  I believe it my destiny to be Conscience First Class.  :)
As such, I'm not going to say "You listened to the ego-devil on your shoulder and threw the site down the toilet, Jim, buh-bye forever!", for the same reason that I believe that if a room in your house gets messy, you should lock the door and never walk in it again, until you have to move to a new house.

However, even those willing to give Jim the benefit of the doubt, and that he doesn't have those tabloid dollar-signs in his eyes, Daffy Duck style, have to face the truth--He's just told us, "If you won't read this site, I can find people who will."
As a Disney buff, I loved checking in on this site every few hours, to see where the discussion had reached (or whether it'd devolved into AskMike hair-splitting, since nobody caught on he was an "Argument-clinic Troll", as we say on Usenet).
I think half the Cars-Wars "spikes" Jim is so proud of were caused by me.  If so, I do apologize.
To "boycott" the site completely will accomplish absolutely NOTHING--Worse, it will leave Jim in his playpen all to himself, which is the opposite of what we hope the site will accomplish.  Therefore, I am now -rationing- how often I check in on the site to a maximum number of hits per day, in the hopes that we can show to Jim just how many "new eyeballs" are actually "new", and how many were, in fact, old eyeballs, and which were glaring daggers at him.

I encourage others to go on the same "diet" until this crisis is over.  Moderation, not elimination.
The source of Jim's "high" was that rush we all felt during the Roy Wars, when all true old-school Disney fans banded together to stand in defense of what was being blackened by bad decision-making, caused by a self-empowered CEO who had taken over a corporation of many individuals to pursue his own inscrutable and often vindictive self-indulgences, and fire those he imagined responsible for his own faults.
You already know where we're going with this one, folks:  Michael Eisner is still with us.  And he's running a website.  Time for each reader to stand up and say "Just call me Roy."

Jim, we yell at you for having abd sources. for instance the whole thing about hwo much money am move theatre gets was disproven by someone I know who manageas AMC. Now, I no longer thoruohly read your articles, becuase they're boring.

"I forgot about that one, but OTH is still the LOWEST CG film in Dreamworks' post-shrek world.  Where are the articles about how Dreamworks' movies are falling?"
Have Dreamworks' movies ever been rising? Unlike Pixar, they are a one-hit wonder (Madagscar was almost a hit).

"Let's start comparing expected numbers of MTR against Chicken Little and *gasp* the Pixar movies."
I like how you seperate Chicken Little from "the Pixar movies" when cars has just barely done better than it. But put it this way, how long before Cars' premier was there a BO article on it?

"Did we get an article about how Chicken Little didn't make Disney any money?  No.  Why hasn't there been any articles about how other Disney movies performed this year?"
1) There where a whole slew of CL articles late last year...
November 04 (not JH): Will "Chicken Little" be Disney's next big hit? Or a swing & a miss?
December 04: An "On-the-Fly" Why For (about CL & Cars new dates)
April:05: So -- as it turns out -- maybe the sky isn't falling after all
June 05: Disney to release a 3D version of "Chicken Little" to theaters
September 05: Exhibitors seem to think that "Chicken Little" could hit big
October 05: Will Disney Digital 3D help make "Chicken Little" a hit big?
November 05: "Chicken Little" 's debut bedeviled by rampant rumors
November 05: Just how well did "Chicken Little" really do this past weekend?
November 05: "Chicken Little" rules the roost ... again (after CL's strong 2nd week hold)
November 05: Could Disney's PR department inadvertently be setting "Chicken Little" up for a big fall?
November 05: Is it finally time to give "Chicken Little" a little respect? (CL crosses $100m)

Now you might say...well in those he was talking about how well it did. The articles were no different. Here most see good and he points out the bad. There most saw bad and he pointed out the good. And really, what other Disney movie this year is worth mentioning? Is he going to write an article about Step Up? The Wild was a failure, but most weren't expecting it to be a success. But he did manage to write two articles about it ("NOT coming to a Toys 'R' Us near you anytime soon: The Wild merchandise" and "Tis a pity that he's a quote whore"). And then of course Shaggy Dog & Eight Below weren't exactly high profile movies. So besides Cars & DMC, what other Disney movies this year was there to comment on? The last major one was Narnia.


"Whoever thought of this phrase for the site is a genious, because it really allows Jim and his partners to write whatever they want."
Damn Jim for writing what he wants on his own site!!! :)


"Do you not get the concept that people are leaving because Jim Hill is blatantly insulting a large portion of his readership?"
Question: Is Jim leaving the site because people attacked him? Some people take things way too personally.


"In early 2007, a new attraction opens in Magic Kingdom that is a takeoff on the joke-filled Laugh Floor Comedy Club from Monsters Inc. Where are the articles on that?  What is it replacing?  The Time Travelers ride?  Something else?"
It is replacing the Timekeeper attraction. It is going to use similar technology to Turtle Talk except it will be Mike & his monster friends putting on a Comedy Club trying to make people laugh. And although it wasn't a big part of the article, Jim did talk about it at...
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2006/04/19/1959.aspx


"I feel this speaks for itself"
Well, if you look at that chart, the most heavily "trafficed" times are those of controversy. The huge spike in the begining of 2005 is when he got thrown out of DL, the huge spikes early this year is when Pixar was bought by Disney & the spikes a bit later were for his "Tarzan's balconies are too low" articles, The spikes in June were for the early Cars articles & I think we can figure out what the August spikes are from. I mean lets first take out the Disneyland spikes as he got national exposure for those articles and Pixar being bought was most definitely bigger than any recent Disney news. I'd call the current month about average.


"There really is a strong negative narrative in most of the articles he writes."
Oh yeah... like the dragons/bunnies article, the everest article, the weddings article, the Meet the Robinsons articles, the gag reel article, Imagineering, Tower of Terror......... need I go on?


"Please send me the link to the positive carticle, I don't recall it, but I certainly believe you :) "
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2006/06/14/2794.aspx (Cars Soundtrack)
Not to mention the fact that his ex-wife posted in one of the articles that he loved the movie. Or the fact that he sent Michael Howe to the Cars premiere (he didn't have to do that, he could have just talked about numbers). There was another one but I'm too lazy to find it (especially after writing all this). :)


"He could have certainly completed his Light Magic, Star Tours, Muppets, etc. articles."
I'd expect those articles about the same time as he gives out his Disneyland CDs & Michael Eisner announces his secret love affair with Roy Disney. ;)


"Please please please, AskMike, let's just get along :)  I'm totally serious :)"
Okay, but is anyone else expecting a rousing rendition of koom-by-ya? :)


I've just gotta ask, does anyone actually have a comment about the article (and not how the article was written)? Almost all the comments now are about the first half of the article and not the 2nd (ie, Store within a store concept).

Hi AskMike -- no Kumbaya necessary. :)

I think another issue that is Jim's carticle up above (much like many, many others) is spastic.  If he could have simply devoted the carticle to either Hollywood's failures as of late OR Cars DVD sales, he might have had a coherent message.  Maybe it was, but I certainly didn't see it as such.

I think that the store within a store is a snooze of a topic.  Haven't companies been doing that for years?  Lion King pops to mind immediately, in terms of Disney and I'm sure that there have been others.  I don't see why this is news, though.

So, my direct responses to the carticle:

Part One:
I think Jim wrote a snarky piece about Cars fans and tried to vindicate himself through a NYT piece that had nothing to do with Cars.  It made no sense.  However, I agree that while an artistic success (my personal opinion), it didn't meet the expectations set for it.  It still did pretty well, though -- much better than Chicken Little ($100,000,000-ish more).

Part Two:
Jim wrote a tacked-on snarky piece about the Cars DVD and how it won't have the time to succeed because Best Buy, Target, etc. won't keep it on shelves long enough.  I have no argument for or against that.  I'm not in the big box retail industry.  Maybe Jim's right.  I wasn't particularly interested in this part and I thought that the "store within a store" concept wasn't exactly a story that compelled me in any way.  And the concept has been done before, both with success and without.

Comments Section:
This is what happens when you don't listen to your audience, Jim...

<<<Well, I guess I should have expected as such from all you die-hard "Cars" fans out there. You guys are just never going to accept the fact that this John Lasseter film failed to meet Wall Street's original expectations. That they were hoping for a "Finding Nemo" -sized hit from Disney this summer and didn't get one. Which is why the investment community (as well as a significant number of Mouse House executives) are somewhat disappointed with how this Pixar production has performed at the box office.

"But ... But ... But ...," you "Cars" defenders sputter. "Even if this John Lasseter film did miss the investment community's initial financial projections for its domestic run as well as under-perform overseas, that's not going to matter come November 7th. For once 'Cars' finally comes out on DVD, this Pixar Animation Studios film is sure to make beaucoup bucks.">>>

First Jim, you failed to mention that the article you referenced mentions that it can't put a financial quanitifier on the disappointment in Hollywood that has occurred this year. So lets go ahead and put a financial quantifier one on the Cars movie.

So Jim,  what is the value of a movie.  Is it domestic box office, world box office, world box office plus DVD sales, or all income made from a movie including merchandise and licensing, and any other segments of business influenced by that movie?  I'm pretty sure you believe like all of us that its the final one I mentioned.  You've even commented on how well Cars merchandise was doing when compared to Pirates.  I know which one Bob Iger and Wall Street believe in, its all segments of business.

Bob Iger, Disney president and chief executive officer, said the third quarter's strong showing was driven by the company's ability to leverage the success of Cars, the DVD sales of Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, and other hits such as the Disney Channel's TV show High School Musical over “all segments of business, including the theme parks and consumer products.”

So we have a movie that will pass 400 million worldwide by the end of September.  We also know that at the beginning of August Cars merchandise was already over 600 million in sales(and over 100 million in revenue) putting us over 1 billion total. When you add in the continued sales of Cars merchandise and DVD's Cars is on its way to passing 1.5 billion in total sales across all segments of business.

Bottom line is if you are going to talk about the financial aspects of Disney on Mondays you better make sure you actually include all the aspects that matter. So if you want to talk about Cars again next Monday, no problem.  Love to see how you explain away 1.5 billion dollars.  

"Bottom line is if you are going to talk about the financial aspects of Disney on Mondays you better make sure you actually include all the aspects that matter. So if you want to talk about Cars again next Monday, no problem.  Love to see how you explain away 1.5 billion dollars."

Don't test Jim.  He will probably try it.  Remember just about a week and a half ago it tried to say the Pirates movies would take awhile to sail into the black and Pirates 2 is close to grossing 1 billion worldwide and this is just with the box office. Please don't tempt Jim he might just do it. After all its only another 1/2 billion. ;)

I find this "Opening Weekend Box-Office" fetish that so many people have is pretty silly. Likewise this comparison of ongoing box-office proceeds between films. If a movie makes a respectable amount of money during its run, as far as I'm concerned it's a success. What worries me about this boffo box-office mentality that obsesses Hollywood execs is I fear that a lot of potentially terrific movies will never get made unless they can guarantee as many "butts in seats" as is humanly possible.

A case in point: One of my favourite films last year was the film version of the Broadway musical, "The Producers". Fact is, it received mixed reviews, the negative ones being primarily from critics who wanted it to be more filmic and less stagey. Personally, I loved it just the way it was done, as I'll bet most of the fans did who had previously enjoyed the show on stage. I don't believe it was a huge box-office hit - hopefully it did respectably well. My fear is that a film like "The Producers", which appeals more to a niche audience of Broadway musical fans and older, more mature movie musical fans, may not lead to more musicals unless it performs royally at the box-office. As it is, I suspect it only got the greenlight more due to how well the "Chicago" movie had performed, rather than as to how popular the stage version had been on Broadway. Obviously a film like "The Producers" could not hope to make the kind of money that "Pirates 2" is currently hauling in. Does that mean that Hollywood should not make such a film unless it can be reasonably guaranteed to make whopping profits from its theatrical release?

Like I said, your fetish with what had the biggest, boffo box-office returns is rather silly. "Cars" was a fine film that made many people happy. I'll enjoy it again when it comes out on DVD. As for the big, dumb "Pirates 2"....nahh.

I think Disney already has a policy in place to keep the price of their animated features high and that's releasing these films from their "vault" for a select window of time every seven years or so.  I find the prices of Disney animation DVDs never gets discounted because of this policy.

But now that Pixar is part of the Disney stable, I can't help but wonder if Disney is going to extend this policy to Pixar films now.

I think William Goldman said it best ... "Nobody in Hollywood knows anything."  The same can apply for Wall Street.

You can end this whole debate on JMH with the above sentence.

My recommendation is to go easy on the financial stories and number crunching and get back to stories about Disney that have some heart and a fair yet positive bent.  Look at MiceAge.com for example.  They report the news, do a bit of mild commentary, and let it go to the forums for discussion.  Reported and done.  No preaching, no backtracking, no "I told you so."  And no, I don't work or post on MiceAge.  It's just a nice Disney site to go for "another" look.

I've said in a previous post on another article that exciting things are happening at the House of Mouse.  Post-Eisner clean-up is in full swing.  Jim Hill is supposed to have a bunch of Disney contacts in place in the upper echelons.  Well, take those contacts to task and start reporting on what's going on in the Burbank offices everyday.  If Bob Iger gets a new Mickey Mouse stapler, I want to hear about it!

All I can say is that with this obviously restrained release of Cars, Disney will actually lose sales of the dvd for now, at least from me.  If I feel like I'm getting fair value and all the bells and whistles with my dvd, then I buy it.  When it has little on it other than the movie, I wait.

I will buy the toys - the store within a store sounds neat.  

Jim - I think your focus is a little too narrow.  We all know what you're saying about Cars.  We understand it.  We just draw a different conclusion.  If King Kong and Cars are considered disappointments by the movie investors, then the movie investors are wrong.  That is the story - not that Cars didn't do well, but those who expected it be like Nemo know less about movies than they would care to admit.  They're probably embarrassed that their understanding of the market doesn't match how they committed their money.

Look - suppose I decide to invest in a coffee shop in Seattle.  I know that coffee shops are huge there and I expect to make 5000% on my investment.  Then I open and discover...competition.  I make back 200% on my investment.  I'm disappointed.  Its the same story here.  OK, we get it.  I know I'm ready for something new - how about an analysis of what a new DVC resort would mean, either at AKL or CR?

Thanks for the link to the article ... it explains the Wall Street short-selling situation and adds a layer to the story that Jim seemed to miss in his "Cars" stories.

It also represents what I was trying to say ... that Wall Street's expectations were simply out of line. I don't think many audiences judge a film on how well it does at the box office -- they want to be entertained and feel good about the money it cost them to get into the multiplex.  I think millions of people who saw "Cars," including myself and the loveable curmudgeon Jim Hill, were generally satisfied with the film's entertainment and artistic values.

I'm sure Wall Street analysts as well as many Disney and Pixar employees would have liked to see "Cars" outgross "Finding Nemo," but given its heavy American-Route 66 storyline, I doubt very many outside observers really thought it would become Pixar's top box office film.  "The Incredibles" didn't do as well as "Finding Nemo" either. Realistically, it might be some time before a Pixar film exceeds $500 million in worldwide box office ... but who cares?

If Pixar still continues to produce the No. 1 -- or even one of the top 3 animated films of the year -- and that film delights millions with its characters and story -- then it should be viewed as both a commercial and artistic success.  The life and marketing synergy of those characters adds additional revenue and profits to Disney and its shareholders for years to come.

The problem is with Wall Street's quick-buck expectations, not with Pixar, Disney or the general public.