Jim -- yes you can see the monkey run toward the boots in DMC :)

And thank you for FINALLY giving us your opinion on Cars.  It's actually my favorite Lasseter film, personally.  I'm not really a huge fan of the Toy Story films or A Bug's Life (Monsters, Inc. and the Incredibles are my favorites).  I also think Finding Nemo was just lightning in a bottle at the box office -- I never got what was so good about it.

That being said, nearly all Pixar films are very, very good :)

Again -- thank you thank you thank you thank you for finally addressing the bigger issues.  I think that the people defending the $$$ side was a very small minority.  I think more of us were getting sick of you rehashing it without ever giving us your own personal perspective.  I don't mind negative -- I just want to know where it's coming from, okay? :)

Well Said Jim!

Personally, from a quality point of view, purchasing Pixar was the right thing to do.  However, working in the corporate world I find that many times what I believe helps employees and customers in a quality way is often at odds with what Wall Street would prefer to see.  I am hopeful that having John Lasseter involved with Disneyland rides and with animation, we will see a rise in quality.  I hope that he kills the direct to DVD garbage they release and either does away with it entirely or upgrades the quality of the offerings.  If these things happen, then over time, I believe the purchase price will have been worth it.  But I am sure that Wall Street will have passed judgement and moved on within one year and they will not care whether we are all having a better Disney experience in ten years or not.  Thanks for the article Jim.  I've always enjoyed the articles and encourage you to keep them up whether I agree with them or not.

Thanks Jim,

Although I'm afraid some readers may think you took another swipe at them by saying they expect only "happy, happy, happy news."
 
That's simply not fair. I don't think anyone would call your stories on Star Tours and the dual "Force" roller coaster "happy, happy stories." Like many of the best stories on the site, they were interesting. Still, some may argue that the historical stories could be called "depressing" because they represent a sort of what could have been. In retrospect we're they unrealistic or too costly to realize. Were they good business decisions or mistakes like passing on Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy?

I've always felt the best critics are the ones who care deeply about the subject matter they criticize. You may not have a vested interest in how Disney/Pixar does -- (well, you might own a bit of stock as I do) -- but I do believe you care deeply about most of what the House of Mouse produces.

I don't expect happy, happy news. We're not a bunch of "Pollyannas" here ... demanding that Jim Hill become a site that posts Disney's official press releases. Yes, some of those no doubt come from an office in Fantasyland. The real story -- fair, unbiased and accurate -- are often more interesting.

Still, you use this article to prime the pump and say that Bob Iger could be in real trouble if Pixar's "Rat" fails to meet Wall Street's expectation. You certainly must recognize that Disney didn't simply buy a film studio when it acquired Pixar. It purchased timeless characters that it can license and market from their creation to infinity and beyond. Disney's business is far more complex than its film, TV and theme park division.

Might I be so bold to suggest -- based on the glut and the box office "failures" this summer -- that it's Wall Street analysts who need to go back, re-evaluate and restate their expectations.

Some may beat the drums and find vindication in their assessments that Disney paid too much for Pixar based on "Cars," "Rat" and a few more films that "underperform" at the box office -- but in 10, 20 or 30 years from now "Iger's folly" might seem like the most savvy business decision of the 21st century. No Hollywood studio has a better track record than Pixar.

Jim, you don't have time like the real fanatics do in watching DMC more than just a few times.  Yes, you do see Barbossa's boots on Tia Dalma's bed...but there were so many other "treats" if you are sharp eyed!  Did you also happen to catch Capt. Jack pick up and inspect what is clearly Barbossa's hat?

Okay, you liked it--
But we're wondering, what's with A) the -personally- being insulted if we say anything good about the movie, and B) being convinced we're sticking our heads in the fanboy sand and "refusing to admit" that Wall Street made a big dopey industry boo-boo about it that cost them the film's future, if we -do- say anything good about it?
I saw the exact same thing happen with You-Know-Which-Animated-Movie that was dopily box-office overestimated out of theaters, and it still riles me when we get "It musta sucked, look how much they lost"...But at least I put it in perspective, and even by my standards, Jim, you're just not able to let this GO!  I joked when I said you were "staking your personal honor" on this, and now that you've thrown an entire column to what amounts to a "tantrum" about it, I'm not joking anymore.  It's something you dearly want to be true, even if it's only partly or misleadingly true, and you're now hurt if we say partly and look at the big picture

And it's not that we want articles that are "happy" (look what happens when we get "happy" articles about Ant Bully), but, as stated before, we don't want The Spin jammed forcefuly onto whatever news comes down the wire.  If man bites dog, we don't want it immediately followed by a rant on on why the dog will probably die of rabies two weeks later.
(And even if I am arguably the harshest "Jim-basher" on the board since the Cars Wars began....at least I've never had to defend, cry or apologize for it.)

I understand the concern over the $7 Billion purchase of Pixar considering the Fox Family deal.  But I have to tell you, Pixar ain't Fox Family.  Anyone who believes it is the same deal is just plain wrong.  The purchase was more than just cars.  Absolute control over the Pixar franchises without sharing of profits or red tape.  The talent aquired.  John Lassetter, Pete Doctor, Andrew Stanton, Brad Bird, and all the other artists involved.  The technology... Renderman anyone?  Also, Pixar has a lot of computer power.  What about having Steve Jobs in your back pocket?  No other studio has had all of their movies cross the $100 Million line.  Name one $100,000,000+ or multi-billion dollar franchise that Fox family has produced?

I understand the reluctant feelings, but Trust me... Pixar is not Fox Family.

As for DMC:  Yes, Barbossa's boots are there.  If you really want to know, I'll tell you who Davy Jones' wife is.

TikiBird73 said:
I understand the concern over the $7 Billion purchase of Pixar considering the Fox Family deal.  But I have to tell you, Pixar ain't Fox Family.  Anyone who believes it is the same deal is just plain wrong.  The purchase was more than just cars.  Absolute control over the Pixar franchises without sharing of profits or red tape.  The talent aquired.  John Lassetter, Pete Doctor, Andrew Stanton, Brad Bird, and all the other artists involved.
----
"Pixar ain't Fox Family"--I love that statement, Tiki.  ^_^

And even more than execs, computers, marketing or movies, they bought a cure for every problem that had been plaguing them:
Eisner was out.  Nobody was trying to pick fights with Pixar anymore.  Nobody was trying to create their own competing studio out of thin air and the wrong computers.  They bought an executive who decided to hire animators back, whose firings were the point of the war in the first place.  They bought a well-known executive who decided that the parks could use some neat-o new stuff.
They didn't just buy a studio....They bought friggin' Mikhail GORBACHEV, and the Berlin Wall came a-tumblin' down.  :)  And nobody can buy that with money.

So, to simplify the issue:
- "Happy" press-release repasting article, as you get on LaughingPlace.com?:  Bad.
- Press release statement with context about whose name means what, what it dates back to, and what it could mean for upcoming projects:  Good.
- What it could mean for the studio with side stories about Disney history, interviews with insiders, and a paralleling look back into the "lost" vaults about how this resembles an earlier idea from Walt or Ron's day:  Very good.
- Articles forcefully spun back onto "Why Disney paid too much for Pixar, even if you don't believe me, it'll happen, then you'll be sorry!":  Bad, Jim, bad.
- Articles that detail the doom and gloom "If" something happens, before it's even happned yet--or, as with one article, "If something bad HAD happened", regardless of the fact that it really hadn't and something good had happened:  Very bad, Jim.  <swats with newspaper>  No ice cream for you.  Go sit in the corner.

(And yes, I'm talking about Ratatouille, the movie that will "probably flop" a year from now:
And why does everyone think so, apart from wishful thinking on one columnist's part?...Because a lot of moviegoers couldn't figure out an obscure teaser--except for those of us who took the trouble to tune into a certain "spoiler" post and now know how much plot the movie actually has--and made a lot of snap judgments that may or may not be changed by subsequent events and more specific ads, unless they're going to be danged muleheaded about it for that entire year.

It isn't so much that we, or rather I want HAPPY stories.  I just want variety. You really only need one "CARS didn't make as much money as Disney and the stock guys wanted even though it was number two in box office earnings" article. If you want to get in there and stick salt in wounds lets talk about whether or not buying Pixar was smart. Short term...probably no.  No huge gains will be coming from this buy for a while.  But, it prevents some other studio from having all that talent and using Pixar to suck money away from Disney films.  And as pointed out above, Disney now owns all these films and characters that can be used to make tons more money.  So long term, Iger will definitely be right.  Of course since Wall Street demands it's money be made in the short term these days, Iger could be gone before anyone realizes what happened.  Glad to finally hear what you thought of Cars. But, again your tone is getting increasingly snide.  How should we know how many times you go to the movies?  All we get is what we read. Why in the world you couldn't post a review earlier is beyond me.  We actually want to know what you think about stuff. I don't need to agree with you, but I want that opinion. Had you reviewed the movie and then proceeded to write half a dozen articles about how it isn't REALLY making any mone,y we might not have been leaping down your throat.  And it's painfully obvious that your current postings have made a majority of folks think you hate Disney. And you just SIGH. Dude, it isn't US who are confused.  It's your writing.  You used to write in a more impartial style that led me to believe that while you had true affection for Disney, you were going to report a truer picture, good or bad. Which is what I think you believe you are doing now. You aren't. You are slowly heading into territory that Al Lutz has ventured into. Sourpuss crabbypants with a mean streak.  Now I don't think that's you. And I don't think it's Al either.  But since we only gauge who you are by your online personality, you need to listen to your audience. Hey, if you want to be perceived as an arrogant jerk, that's your right.  But most of us here are pretty sure that's not you.  And that is probably why these neener neener neener CARS posts are rubbing so many of the wrong way. And by the way, an article on how Bill Nighy becomes Davy Jones will shut us all up make make you our hero again.

And even if we are accusing Jim of using Cars to lecture us about what will surely be the fortune-crushing doom and gloom of "Iger's Folly", let us do what JHM fans have learned to do best:  Look at history.

It didn't start with the Cars-bashing.
It started with three or four articles, one the week after the next, micro-analyzing the receipts to "Chicken Little", exhorting us that it "Hadn't really been a flop after all", despite the critical drubbing, the lost profits, David Stainton's lost job at the studio, and audiences wondering whether it was, in fact, the worst Disney animated  movie yet made--
But more than that, every article was now "happy, happy, happy" about the fact that, why, this could be the sign that Disney now had its OWN computer studio, might very well be able to produce its own competing product in the marketplace, and, shucks folks, might turn out there'd be no need for Disney to buy -anybody!-

....Sound eerily familiar?  And that was back when we weren't able to see it coming.
Like we said in the last post, Jim:  LET.  IT.  GO!!!

TikiBird73 said:
"Name one $100,000,000+ or multi-billion dollar franchise that Fox family has produced?"

ok...Power Rangers.  Sure, it's shlock...but it makes a TON of money.  While it wasn't CREATED by Fox Family it was part of the property Saban brought to the table.  I worked for Saban/Fox Family for a time (on a different project) and I can tell you that the place lived and breathed Power Rangers.  I recall hearing at one point that Rangers licensed products were/(are?) second only to Star Wars products in profits.

In any case yes, the Fox Family deal was absurdly expensive.  Pixar is an infinitely better value.

I believe you are 100% correct about the anticipation for Pirates 3.

No one really cares about Jack Sparrow's predicament.  He's getting out of it, we all know this.  He won't be dead, and more likely than not the solution will be underwhelming.  I don't think anyone I've talked to has even mentioned that part of the ending.

However, everyone is dying to see what happens with the rest of the cast.  Granted, Johnny Depp steals the show, but the Kraken ending wasn't interesting.
Geoffrey Rush would steal the show if not for Depp, and everyone is dying to see what happens there.


I loved the movie.  It lagged a bit, and it was nowhere near the original, but I love the setting, love the characters, and think the tone is just nailed.  I only looked at my watch to see how much time was left, hoping it would keep going.  I did not want the movie to end.

"moviegoers appear to be growing bored with computer animation"

I have a feeling that moviegoers would feel the same way if there had been an abundance of traditionally animated films in theaters all at once, too.  In my opinion, studios were wrong in thinking that people only wanted to see CGI movies; I know that the CGI movies have been making more money, generally, than the more recent traditionally animated films.  

I wonder how the Pixar movies would have done if they were traditionally animated; would "Finding Nemo" be the whale-sized hit that it is if it had been traditionally animated?  Obviously, we can't know for certain, but I'm curious.

To me, it's quality, not quantity, that counts.  That's cliche, but it's true.  I haven't seen them, but I haven't heard anything good about "Doogal" or "Barnyard", or even "Sinbad".  I'm thinking that these just weren't good movies; I wonder if there had been an abundance of excellent CGI movies in the theaters if their box office numbers would be much better; people only have so much money to spend.

http://www.o-meon.com/pages/columns/col_08-22-06.html

A great article about the whole cars/pixar/disney situation.  This is the type of reporting that isn't just "cars is a failure."

[quote]"Really?," she said. "But I thought that you hated the Walt Disney Company."

*sigh*

Given some of the articles that I've posted on this website, I guess that I shouldn't be all that surprised that a Disney Feature Animation staffer might think this. I mean, judging by what's  sometimes been said about me over in JHM's TalkBack section, it's clear that a number of this site's readers also think the very same thing.[/quote]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its probably not a cow Jim.

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 out of line. I don't think many audiences judge a film on how well it does at the box office -- they simply want to be entertained. And, I think millions of people found "Cars," including myself and the loveable curmudgeon Jim Hill, were generally satisfied with the film's entertainment and artistic values.

I'm sure 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 people 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 ...

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.

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

<<<Given that the Walt Disney Company just paid $7.4 billion for Pixar Animation Studios ... The mere fact that the first film that was released after this acquisition was completed failed to meet Wall Street's expectations ... Well, that's news, people.>>>

Its the partial truths(yes they paid 7.4 billion but Pixar had 1.1 billion in cash, thus actual cost was 6.3 billion) and incorrect opinions(Wall Street expectations) that bother many of us.

Disney actually exceeded Wall Streets expectations with the help of Cars.

"Analysts, on average, had expected the second-largest U.S. entertainment company to report a profit excluding items of 44 cents per share, Disney, whose shares rose 3.3 percent in early trading, said its fiscal third quarter net income rose to $1.13 billion, or 53 cents per share. Staggs said the studio division was the biggest contributor to Disney's outperformance, with "Cars" contributing about $100 million in revenue and the sale of 18 million "Narnia" DVDs helping boost studio division sales by 17 percent to $1.71 billion."

Throw in the eventual billion dollars in Cars merchandise and Pixars first movie will have contributed 1.5 billion in revenue.  Thats just one movie. This combined with Pirates should see a huge 4th quarter.  

With new movies, highly expected sequals(Toys and Monsters) as well as park tie-ins, the purchase of Pixar wasn't just about movies, its about the parks and merchandise as well.  Its what Disney does best.  

Hey DerekJ why dont you just LET IT GO. Live and learn from your own damn words. If you dont like the things Jim has to sy why dont you JUST GO AWAY. I have sat here reading your *** for far to long. You let it go or i will ask the ADMIN to LET YOU GO.

LOUD NOISES!!!



Jim, good article.

Jim, great article - just wanted to say I agree with you on DMC - 30-40 minutes too long, too many action sequences piled on top of each other - and with Geoffrey Rush being the best thing in the film (other than Johnny Depp). Having waited  three years for DMC, I'm now waiting for next May and World's End, looking forward to seeing more of the connections among characters and the resolution (I hope!) of their storylines: Will and Elizabeth, Bootstrap Bill, Pintel & Ragetti, Gibbs, Norrington, Governor Swan, Beckett, and of course Barbosa and Jack.( Ah, only the Tortuga scene could have been longer for me - might have seen more of myself than bits of my costume 'way in the background!)

I think Johnny Depp and the other cast members, screenwriters Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott, Director Verbinski, and Jerry Bruckheimer have created a film franchise people are really connecting with - hence the box office numbers that have blown everything else off the map.

As I write this, I'm sitting in front of the TV watching Curse of the Black Pearl on ABC in Hi Def - and wow is it gorgeous!

Diane

PingBack from http://didjamusic.com/blog/2006/08/28/really-but-i-thought-that-you-hated-the-walt-disney-company-2/

PingBack from http://didjamusic.com/blog/2006/08/28/inside-the-actors-studio-icons/

PingBack from http://didjamusic.com/blog/2006/08/30/really-but-i-thought-that-you-hated-the-walt-disney-company-3/

It's being called the " ... little film with the great big heart." Which is perhaps a polite way of saying that the folks at Disney Studios don't actually expect this Brad Bird film to do all that well at the box office next month. Jim Hill explains why

Since he's already in the doghouse with so many JHM readers, Mr. Hill decided to go totally canine with this week's column. As Jim now answers your questions about how Pluto really got his name, who actually came up with the basic premise for "Lady &