Ratatouille looks good. but you do have to admit, it faces extreme competition, competition which might lead to its downfall

Here's the thing. The trailers for Cars were absolutely terrible. The teaser showed a bunch of generic cars racing around for seemingly no reason, then made me think I would get sick of hearing Mater utter "daggum" all year. Neither of those turned out to be true. Then the actual trailers themselves were poorly edited and gave away the entire story. The basic plot of cars was already predictable, having the trailer give it all away didn't help.

Ratatouille seems to be on a good start. The teaser introduces the character in an exciting and comical way. We know what his problem is and in a way, we are (or at least I am) somewhat invested in the character. As long as the upcoming trailers don't show vital scenes from the movie that spoil the plot or feature all the best jokes (which ultimately makes viewing the movie flat), Ratatouille should do fine. Already many of my friends and family members have expressed interest in the movie. Hopefully Disney handles in properly.

What a terrible time to be releasing it.  I know that this is the summer of the trilogy and that it would be difficult to compete at any time, but geez.  It's already got Flushed Away working against it, just as a stand alone, but to have to deal with Transformers and Harry Potter directly following it...I really hope it does well, because I don't think the Disney/Pixar partnership is a bad one.  I think Disney needed Pixar, but I understand the reality of what Wall Street and analists will take from a bad showing.  Here's hoping.

Cars suffered from its greatest strength: its subject.  For all the potential audience that NASCAR fans represent, for all the little boys who are all but guaranteed to want any toy with wheels, there is a huge market of folks who just don't get it.  Just among the people I know, I heard the same mantra...something along the lines of "I like the Pixar films, but I'm not that into cars."

Looking at the slate that Cars is up against, man, its daunting.  Refelecting back on Incredibles, wasn't that film released in the autumn?  I think that made all the difference, rolling it out when your competition is less noisy and event-driven.  Incredibles was one of those films that audiences needed to "learn"...it was a film that benefited from good word of mouth and had legs to prove it.  If Pixney thinks Ratatouille is a similar film, then dropping it into the sound byte arena of Summer 2007 is a mistake.  Folks just will not have enough time to understand what the film is about.

PIXAR has such a leg up in this fight.  Their brand is strong and respected, and they have numerous opportunities to pimp their product in venues that the competition lacks access to.   But one of those opportunities is the trailer that preceeded Cars.  That film's inability to become a mainstream juggernaut a la Nemo means less impressions made by the Rat trailer.

These guys should be looking for every opportunity to introduce folks to to their new characters.  And not just billboards, TV commercials, and all the other ususal routes.  

I'm more excited for "Meet the Robinsons" and "Enchanted" this year, but I think that "Ratatouille" looks good, too.  "Cars" is my favorite Pixar film, so I don't know if it'll live up to that film, but I think it's a cute premise and, without the competition at the box office, it would probably do decently.  Couldn't Disney have released it in the fall?  Or, even better, during December (I know it'd be competing with "Enchanted"), when kids are off from school?  There's no need to worry about POTC, but, as far as "Ratatouille" is concerned, I'm worried that it might get buried beneath the competition.  I'll go and see it, though.

I agree with blackcauldron85. I'm more excited for the releases of Meet the Robinsons and Enchanted too (just because they're Disney movies). I also think Disney should reconsider the release date. Maybe put it two weeks after the release of Harry Potter? Don't know if it's possible, but it sure would be a better position. Or wait. Moving it two weeks after Harry Potter puts Rat in Robinsons stream doesn't it? Well, hope Disney can figure out a way, 'cause when Rat "flops" Wall Street will sure be saying that Pixar wasn't worth $ 7.4 b.

All the second-guessing (if that is what is happening) is more likely to ruin the promotional campaign than improve it. If there are 75 million Nascar fans (which I doubt) then there are 225 million Nascar non-fans, and I'm sure I was not the only one put off by the promos for Cars that made it seem like it was nothing but a racing movie. Fortunately I went to see it anyway, and it was much better than the promotional campaign gave me any reason to believe.

I think they should just stick with the "Do you like food? So does he." approach used in the current trailer. Sometimes you just have to do your thing and ignore Wall Street. Where is Steve Jobs when we need him?

They should push Ratatouille to release after Transformers and Harry Potter to a position where is should be able to compete comfortably with the Simpsons movie.  Nemo was released well after the competition of Early July and...well you know the rest.  Putting it before Transformers and Potter is essentially giving it a quick death and will make the studio heads think they overpaid for Pixar.  The movie looks good though.  I will definitely go see this one in theaters when it comes out...

The merchandising for this is a nightmare. Not many kids will want to fall asleep with a stuffed rat. (the mickey mouse version, yes, but he doesnt look like he would be found in your kitchen cabinets) Action figures with cheese props?

I say Disney's should (like ruining, oops i mean enhancing) other board games, would be to re-do Mouse Trap like theyve re-done battleship and Life. Beyond that, I cant imagine kids begging thier moms for merchandise from this movie.

I dont have an interest in this film really. Just hasnt appealed to me yet, or made me think Oooo thats a concept I want to see. Rats in a kitchen. I saw a live-action flik that was pretty good, almost the same concept. Only it was about the humans, Mouse Hunt?

I just think in the past (pre-cars) Pixar movies were cool because it was like looking in this world that you never knew you were interested in, until they told you about it. Toys coming alive when I leave my bedroom? Secret life of monsters? Stuff most people dont wonder about until someone reminds them its a possibility.

Secret life of rats in france? I see the restaurant end. Kill the rats plz. I dont care what his plight is, he's a rat. And rats are dirty. And im not interested in seeing his nest, and his friends and girlfriend and watching him make rat babies. I dont think im alone.

Good points, Jim. Look at the "Charlotte's Web" movie. Now we all know that Nickelodeon, the movie's backer, has built an empire on vulgarity, crudeness, and aiming for the lowest common kiddie denominator (and that's pretty low). But by focusing "Charlotte's" ad campaign on Templeton the rat (thinking, no doubt, that he'd be more appealing to little boys than a cute little piglet), Nick has shot itself in the foot. The movie is a real box office disappointment, and too bad - I hear it's a charmer, but the Nick people made it look like a stupid, loud, Fairly Oddparents-like fartfest. I hope Disney will look both at "Charlotte's Web" and "Flushed Away" as lessons on how NOT to market a film, and good luck to them. As you say, they've already got a problem on their hands thanks to their lead character - although I must say the trailer is amusing.

Rats and food.....what's not to love!  If you have ever had a rat in your house you know what joy....what hilarious hijinks ensue...as it contaments everything in your kitchen ;)

The teaser for Rat looks fun however i think I would have preferred character designs more in the vein of Flushed Away; humanized rats.  The character designs in Flushed Away are very appealing and fun...Mickey Mouse like mice (clothes, shoes etc).......or Pixar could have gone the Jerry the Mouse route and just made their rats really cute.

But with the realistic looking fur (blue or not)...little pink hands and feet....yes I can't wait to buy a Remi plush for my daughter to cuddle with at night.

wow - how impressive. The Wall Street gang finally decided what a bunch of regular internet Disney Co observers said last summer was correct - Cars gross plus merchandise sales were very impressive and by no means a "disappointment." When the internet folks said it, the official responce was that the internet folks just didn't understand big business, but now that "Wall Street" has decided to repeat it, then it must be true. No change in actual facts, just who interprets them and somehow the situation has changed.

Last summer it was - the sky is falling because Cars is being released too close to Superman. That never actually caused a problem.

Rat will be fine two weeks after Pirates - if anything, move it up. June 8, 15, and 22 all look just fine, IF the calendar listed remains correct. If the marketing department, with access to the entire ABC network plus another dozen cable channels can't get the word out, the problem is not with the movie.  

Disney Co still needs someone who will say - "We're not disappointed with our results of having the top two movies of 2006. If you are concerned with overpaying - we overpaid way too much for Fox family channel, and many many other deals. Pixar is actually contributing to the bottom line, unlike the billions we spend purchasing rights to movies that will never be produced. Regardless of what Wall Street analysts tell you, they are not pyschic. We're going to make the best movies we can and try to promote them as best we can, and that's that."

The fact is: Cars aren't personable. They aren't cuddly objects that children can cling on to, and that is why this movie was considered lackluster by Disney chiefs. Not to mention, slapping a NASCAR label on something other than beer, cigarettes, hardware, or RV's won't grab a NASCAR fan's attention.

Ratatouille, I think, will do very well, as I think children will enjoy a cuddly creature and the potential gross out that kid's love (an animated rat eating kid image friendly trash).

I think the advantage that Ratatouille will have over Cars is it's worldwide grosses. Cars made it up with merchandise, I think that Ratatouille will make it up in worldwide.

Cars did less worldwide than it did domestically (mostly because of the subject) whereas  Finding Nemo did twice worldwide what it did domestically. And Ratatouille doesn't have the subject matter issues that Cars does. (Heck the story takes place in France).

I for one am not too exicted to see Ratatouille, but then I wasn't that interested in Cars and it is one of my favorites.

"Since they consider these sorts of films to be juvenile fare"

With crap like Happily 'N' Ever After & Suf's Up, can you really blame them? HNA looks to be the lamest excuse for a movie I've ever seen & advertising Surf's Up as a "True Story" is equally as lame.  

And moving to Ratatouille, that is just the same old thing too. It's stereotypical Pixar and doesn't bring anything new to the marketplace.

With just a few exceptions, Meet the Robinsons looks to be the only 'new' animated film out this year. To me, it has everything going for it (at least trailer wise). For starters, I love how Disney opted not to go for the Movie Trailer Guy, shows they want this film to stand out. I love how it looks like Disney is going for a semi-serious-yet-still-funny story without any fart jokes in it (which it seems every animated film now has). I get the chills when I hear the score from the trailer and see the beginning of it. I hope they put their marketing muscle behind that film.

I think the competition is too great to expect a big box office.  I am sure the movie will do well and definately better than the new penguin movie.  I think the penguin thing will be over blown by then.  Ratatouille should be released for Thanksgiving or Christmas.  I think it woud do better then.  The problem with the movie is also its name.  I can't spell it, so I had to copy and paste it in this post.  Most people wont be able to pronounce it even though in the ads it gives the pronunciation.  The general population wont notice that or remember it.

askmike1: I'm actually looking forward to Happily N'Ever After. Seems fun, even though the animation is bleegghh. Agree with you on Meet the Robinsons. If Disney puts enough marketing behind the movie it will be a blast at the box office in about three months.

netenyahoo: the competition is huge, but that's not the problem. If the movie and the concept was good enough it would have blown away the competition. But unforth. it's not. The animation will be great of course, and the screenplay too, no worries about that. But it is the concept of rats + kitchen + food + chef that gets me to say: mwah. Not so appealing. I will go see the movie, because I want to see if it's any good (and because it's Pixar), but don't know if every parent will feel the same.

(Is it an American thing to not know how to pronounce Ratatouille? Okay, I had five years of French at school, and the Dutch language has many French words, but still. Never used the word before in my life before I saw the title somewhere, and knew how to pronounce it without the help from the ad.)

This thread wouldn't have been complete without AskMike's Pixar slam.  I only skim Pixar threads on JHM, since there is never any substance to them.  Nothing but  "industry insiders" "worried" about Pixar's share of the pie.  

I give up.  You're right.  Cars was a flop, there should be more DTV sequels and Tinkerbelle videos, etc. etc.  You're right, the facts are wrong, etc. etc.

Jim Jim Jim, come on. The reason Cars did poorly was because it was a non-marketable, non-appealing concept to start with. Really, who wants to see a movie about a world populated entirely by cars? That doesn't even make any sense, to start with, and on top of that, frankly, the movie was a turkey. Full of modern pop-culture references that will go over the head of most kids and adults and that will be dated within a year or two, and that's exactly the reason Pixar was good before: they didn't have that. That's what Dreamworks or Warner has. Pixar was and is about the story, and the characters, and the story stunk, and the characters were cliched and boring. Frankly I'm actually surprised it made as much money as it did. I'm a huge Pixar fan and I thought it was by far their worst film, no doubt about it. I hope for better for Ratatouille, and I think it will do better, because the word of mouth on it should be pretty good (so long as they don't completely screw it up). Stop defending Cars and start accepting it as Pixar's first mistake. Everyone makes them, accept it and move on.

The media loves to publish "will this be the one to bomb" year after year or "will this one restore the winning streak?"

And really, I'm glad Pixar is just making a movie without having some fast food promotional partner second-guessing the subject matter. It's just a movie and it's not real rats cooking. Ok, one of the hotter anime among otaku and the general Japanese market has an anthro reindeer doctor regularly patching up human patients. Doesn't sound too sanitary but it's fiction ppl.

'Cause you're so objective....

<<

This thread wouldn't have been complete without AskMike's Pixar slam.  I only skim Pixar threads on JHM, since there is never any substance to them.  Nothing but  "industry insiders" "worried" about Pixar's share of the pie.  

I give up.  You're right.  Cars was a flop, there should be more DTV sequels and Tinkerbelle videos, etc. etc.  You're right, the facts are wrong, etc. etc

>>

1) What is your problem?

2) Where did I bash Pixar? All I said is that Ratatouille is nothing new? Never did I say Pixar films suck. I happen to love both the Toy Story series & Monsters Inc very much (and I like all the other ones). Stop twisting my words.

3) Where did I, in this discussion, say anything about Cars. Unlike almost everyone else, I did NOT mention that movie at all. I did not mention sequels, Tinkerbell and anything else. So stop putting words in my mouth.

<<

JHM continues the drive-by hit job on Lasseter. The anti-Lasseter bias would be funny by now if it wasn't so transparent and sad.

>>

Where in this article does he talk negatively on Lasseter in this article? All he says about him is that A) His movie, Cars, was a success and B) Cars faced little competition (and he didn't even say that, Variety did). This article was about BRAD BIRD'S film, Ratatouille.

Oh come on askmike1 - nothing is new. Everyone has done an idea based on everything that has ever existed.

Toys have been done way before pixar did them, coming to life.

Ants and Bugs, everyone has done those, even before pixar did them

Monsters. Such a boring topic, they've been done before many times in animation and movies.

Fish! Stupiditly boring topic as well - done to death by every thing previously.

CARS! Hello Chevron commercials by Aardman...boring boring boring.

Rats! I used to see these all the time in my old house, boring boring boring.

Everything has been done either in animation, art, motion picture, plays, or any other form of media you could imagine. So, nothing is going to be new, but it comes down to one thing that makes them unique when pixar takes them on and that sir, is the twist of the storytelling.

Pixar should remain concerned with putting out good movies (which I think they have done) rather than trying to hit a lowest-common-denominator milepost in hopes of being #1 any given weekend.  Let the quality shine through and perhaps Pixar/Disney will be pleasantly surprised like with Toy Story.  So I say, underestimate away!

You can bet that if the Disney/Pixar bunch are worried about how this new film will do - the next in the most successful continuous string of products in modern history - the same types of worrywarts at Universal, Sony, and wherever else are also worried that Shrek's fart jokes will finally fall flat, kids will tire of Harry Potter, and Transformers will turn into the next Thunderbirds.  

Can you think of another company or production team that has consistently produced like Pixar has?  The golden age of animation had its lumps; no car company has produced successful cars this many times in a row; no toy company has produced the year's top draw year after year; no university has won the big bowl games so many times.  

The people who heap all these expectations on the creative team need to be creative themselves, and part of the solution - not just people who point to any possible problem and complain the company didn't get rich enough fast enough.  

As a former Pixar shareholder, I was more worried about unreasonable expectations than the quality of the product.  As a Disney shareholder, I have the same worry.

I think there's nothing wrong with bringing out concerns but that's pretty much true of most non sequels or remakes - animation or not. The WSJ had that article that most animation movies that had 5-6 week clearances were hits while others were not but that's just wrongheaded analysis (and there were exceptions so whatever doesn't fit in is discarded) - if the word of mouth is good, people will go see it, other than King Kong, most movies are 2 hours long and people can fit in a 2 hour movie over a couple weeks so it's a convenient excuse for some "non-hits" to blame that as a factor as if the audience declares, I'm seeing one animated movie this month and after I choose, that's it. It's the old, if it fails, it's not our fault but if it's a hit, it's all us.

Even in hindsight, no one really knows anything - how much of sour grapes from Disney marketing about Cars is that it was not a "real" Disney movie? That they've had to put with failures or simply solid hits from Disney animation for 4 years while Pixar gets all the blockbusters and all the raves? Where is the vaunted Disney marketing when it comes to movies that fail? But they'll take create for creating a hit, right? Sure, in hindsight the trailer might've been stronger but you also have to consider that many parents didn't think girls would be interested (not sure on the intent to see with gir;ls 2-11) so how many more would a great trailer have brought in? How much more can you get than $244 million? NASCAR might have a lot of fans but does everyone who watches the NFL pay money to see a football movie? In fact, I don't think there's every been a blockbuster football movie - a lot of solid hits so where are the sour grapes there? I think you also have to consider that in a perverse way, people have such high expectations of Pixar that they figured they'd buy the DVD so why spend the money going to the theater (presuming their kids are all teens or older)? You can speculate a lot of ways but the bottom line is: $244 million, #2 in any year is great unless you spend $300 million making the thing. They've already sold 12 million DVD's - maybe $180 million already in DVD gross revenue plus the stores were selling Cars merchandise like ganbusters at Xmas so there's another $100 mm revenue in licensing ... can you squeeze more out? In hindsight, sure ... but it will live FOREVER and you can speculate all you want but you also have to keep in mind, Disney marketing judgment is not exactly 3rd party - hidden agenda free.

Converly for the future, Look at Nemo when it was about to be released, Eisner was sure it was Pixar's first bomb and if you thought about it - how exciting was a movie about a fish - it seemed like a toddler movie with a purple dinosaur so even Disney, what were expectations for Pirates after the bomb of Haunted House? Like everyone else, I thought - how do you make a movie from a theme park ride and Johnny Depp? He's great at weirdos but a summer blockbuster? man, was I wrong on every count just like most people.  Yea, a mouse is always a tougher sell but so was Nemo - outside of a 4 year old, who wants fish merchandiscing? It didn't really hurt Nemo that no one wanted to buy a nemo action figure and nowadays, there is ALWAYS going to be projected competition but real competition? When "sure" things fail or fall short, all the "experts" crawl out and say, "I told you so." But when it hits - rarely do people want to credit the storytelling ... and as for the competition next summer, sure it will appear fierce but just like any summer, two of the projects will flop and many will fall short of expectation.

Most of the earlier releases are adult films that will certainly not impact much plus Ocean's 13 and Die Hard4 are hardly anticipated sequels - they will have to deliver a quality movie because Ocean 12 was a trifle and Bruce Willis hasn't had a blockbuster hit in a long time.

Transformers is also a live action big spectacle now so it's not going to impact Ratu much ... Harry Potter definitely will. so really, it's a perfect weekend. Evan Almighty will bring out the family so you don't want to risk going up against that ... then the 29th - Die Hard 4 is no competition - then you lead into July 4th long weekend where Transformers will again draw the young men & perhaps young women but the family audience has no other major releases  so you have one summer weekend and one long summer weekend ... not bad. And you have two weeks before harry Potter opens plus remember, as harry Potter grows older,  the series is also darker so a lot of parents are not going to take pre-teens until they check it out first ... see, it just depends on if you're half full or half empty ... not looking so bad now, right? And after that, you coast until Labor Day because August is still pretty much dead except for horror films & smaller comedies  ...

If I remember correctly, there were "Cars" trailers in the theaters long before the film ever arrived.  It seems like 6 to 9 months worth.  I was beginning to wonder if the film would ever arrive...  The only reason I wanted to see the film was the trailer - It was captivating, colorful and downright funny.  

Now, the Mouse House is worried about a film about a Rat...  Enough so, they are expecting a bomb instead of promoting a winner, am I right, Jim?  

What I don't get (and I admit I'm not a "professional" in the Business) is the simple fact that a serious amount of $$$ was spent not only to create the idea, but to create the project and prepare it for distribution.  Naive that I am, I would like to think that Someone actually liked the idea enough to get the funding, etc.

Now, I've seen the trailer and I liked it.  Enough to add it to my To Be Seen list.  Granted, I don't think anyone under the age of 10 might find it funny (as someone here said, doubt that kiddies would like a stuffed rat to sleep with), but I do think that - perhaps -  the adult audience might enjoy it.

As far as placement on the summer schedule goes, I would either get it in before the  first of May or after the end of July.  I don't think it will survive its current placement.  The trailer has been out for awhile and those that are interested might not be willing to wade thru the summer schedule to find it.  Folks will be looking for the POTC and Potter films among the others on the schedule.  The less likely to be Top 10 runners will be run over by the pack.

Just My $.25

Next summer is ridiculously competitive, possibly the most we've ever seen.  We're talking about sequels to three movies that are in the top 7 worldwide and/or domestic, and a fourth at 14/17.  So even if this matched pixar's biggest hit, that's still probably only #5 for the summer.  I wonder how much talk there is (if any) about moving to fall?  That release date looks suicidal.

jnmcnally: Pixar hasn't been producing feature films for that long, so you can't compare it to a regular movie studio.

I have hopes that Ratatouille (bad title, by the way) will be a better film than 'Cars.'

In my experience, word-of-mouth is what makes or breaks Pixar movies. Everyone knew that 'Finding Nemo' was flat-out funny and clever. 'Cars' was slow, and seemed more formulaic than any Pixar film to date. It was dialogue-heavy in places (kids snore), but very kid-oriented in how it was promoted. Who really wants to watch an animated NASCAR race as a movie finale?

Of course, it was worth seeing -- but not multiple times like 'Toy Story 2' or 'The Incredibles.'

'Flushed Away', incidentally, has some great bits in it. I feel like it's a movie designed for YouTube, where it's good scenes you watch - not neccesarily good films.

Happy new year,

-joshMshep

I've got to admit that I am worried about Ratatouille. To be honest this is the first Pixar film that I have no excitement to see. Even with the "terrible" previews that Cars had, I was hooked. I knew that no matter how sub-par the trailers looked (I swear marketing people just don't get it!) that Pixar would pull through.

However, this time, I am not so sure. I am excited that Brad Bird is working on something else, and I trust him. However, I don't have much love for rats and I don't like the trailer. Something about it has rubbed me the wrong way. I am just not sure what.

That being said, though, this has nothing on how bad Meet the Robinson's looks to me. That movie has already turned me off 100%. The trailer has made it look loud, insane (very ADD-ish), and just plain lousy! Between now and the release date, that movies going to have to work its butt off to make me spend a dime on!

As far as Ratatouille's release date goes: Disney is insane, but it may work. I just recently saw a preview for Surfs Up and this is what I said to my wife: "Ladies and Gentlemen we have reached the bottom of the barrell. As you can see, we are scraping what little is left to pull this movie together!" My point is that movie looks awful, and I doubt that will change. Shrek the Third looks lame, same old, same old. Plus 2 was so-so! So I am already planning on skipping that one.  What's left on that list before Ratatouille is released (POTC and Spiderman 3 not withstanding) is mostly adult-type fair that families avoid anyways. So we'll see and hope.

Movies are never a sure thing, and while you can project the profits to be way up there, its NEVER a sure thing, and investors know this before going into this.  There are plenty of great movies that never really did much (IE The Island, which, imo, is one of Bay's better film) but as Pixar has already seemed to note, a lot really goes into how you market the thing.  I think the reason why cars did well (not great like expected, but well) was because people do recognize Pixar as a label that produces quality movies and they'll go see that, but I think that's all Pixar really did with the ads was say, "Look, Pixar! Go.. See... Now... you must!"  I don't remember anything special about the advertisement that really grabbed my attention.  Where as with Finding Nemo or The Incredibles, I remember watching the commercials and thinking, wow, this is going to be a fun movie, I can't wait to see it!

So with that in mind, how are they going to market Ratitouille?  Who knows, but I imagine that success with this film will revolve around the way they market it.  They have to find a way to get people to think, Hmm... Transformers or Ratitouille?  Or think, hmm well I've already seen Spiderman e and Pirates 3, both were great, but I sort of want to see what that Ratitouille is about.  So they need to find a way to peak people's interest.  Personally, I think the release is far to close to the release of PotC 3, and could deter away repeat movie goers from that movie, but we shall see.

I will be there opening day for this. It looks funny. It looks adorable. The characters look appealing.

As we've gone over dozens of times here, Cars lacked that to many, many people. I am a car buff, but an upscale car buff. Make a movie full of M3s, Enzos and GTs and I'll consider it. Make if of Monte Carlos, redneck junkers and a token 911 and I'm taking a wait-until-it's-free attitude.

This, though, looks like a bit of a throwback. Pardon the pun, but it's cheese. Lots of cheese. It doesn't seem to be on the higher level Pixar often is, but nor does it seem to be the lower level Shrek and other Dreamworks movies are.

It looks cute. And amusing. So I'll be there.

And they were nervous enough about putting all those "Bugs" inside Happy Meals.

in regards to Cars "failing" or not or whatever.....

here is the hollywood dealie.  folks are paid a lot of money to sit around and come up with projections..estimates on how well a upcoming film will do.  so with Cars lets say, before the film even opened there were spreadsheets depicting the movies BO gross domestic, foreign, DVD sales, merchdising all the way down the line...there were figures indicating Cars entire net worth before the film was even screened...  

the first number in the spreadsheet..domestic gross...effects everything that comes after it.  if the projection is high domestic, it will be high for DVD sales etc...stands to reason...pretty common sense there..

there are also milestone on these sheets....if the movie makes X we do a sequel.. if it makes XY we do a sequel and a TV show....take Atlantis or Chicken Little...further films/TV shows were planned...they were on the spreadsheet, but since the films failed to hit those estimates those projects were canceled.....

I know nothing more about Cars projections beyond what I have read online, however if the projections were high (and many times projections are unreasonable) Cars may have "failed" to met those high projections...

so they go back to their spreadsheet....erase 2 zillion dollars and put 1 zillion dollars......this impacts everything down the line..presto chango the total net worth of the film is now lower than before....and exec are sad and "disappointed"...because they always want their spreadsheets to be right..... "we were hoping for 3 billion dollars but "only" made $2 billion"....

Studio projections and estimates for all the 2007 summer blockbusters, from BO through cable rights, are either being tweaked or are most likely already in place...

soon they will learn if their product hit the mark...

Wow, people are really missing what is going on here.

Marketing wasn't the biggest problem with Cars; managing expectations was the biggest problem with Cars. Jim never said that Cars was bad, or really that Cars did poorly at the box office. He said that Cars didn't meet the expectations that had been set for it by Wall Street and Disney.

This time, the expectations are being set really, really low. Oh no, what ever shall we do with this movie that we have to market against Optimus Prime and Harry freakin' Potter. Please Wall Street don't yell at us when this movie comes out and completely tanks.

>But when that didn't happen ... Well, the first place that we looked was at 'Cars' marketing. We started asking ourselves: 'Did we position this picture properly? Should we have gone with another poster? Or a different set of TV commericials?' You always wind up second-guessing yourself in situations like this."

Maybe the reason was...the movie wasn't very good?

>That downward trend -- coupled with the fact that there's no possible way that the sale of "Ratatouille" -related merchandise could ever make up for this particular film's box office shortfall -- would then re-open the door for discussion about whether or not the Walt Disney Company significantly over-paid when it acquired Pixar Animation Studios for $7.4 billion.

Look, hasn't that argument already been put to bed? Does anyone -really- think that buying Pixar was a bad decision? Especially compared to the $5 billion spent on buying the Family Channel?

It was worth that money just to get the Pixar monkey off of Iger's back. Time to put this debate away for good.

>Cars suffered from its greatest strength: its subject.  For all the potential audience that NASCAR fans represent, for all the little boys who are all but guaranteed to want any toy with wheels, there is a huge market of folks who just don't get it.  Just among the people I know, I heard the same mantra...something along the lines of "I like the Pixar films, but I'm not that into cars."

People don't get...cars? Even though it's the most popular product in the U.S.? One more debate we can put to bed. Are that many people really into fish? The reviews on "Cars" were lukewarm at best, as was the word of mouth. That was why the movie wasn't the blockbuster that "Finding Nemo" was. It has little to do with the fact that people "don't like cars."

I probably would have been more interested in Cars if it was just about regular cars and not a Nascar thing (complete with redneck cars with bad teeth).  I'm a huge pixar fan but didn't even see cars until last weekend when we babysat someone who owned a copy.  For me, it was their weakest movie by far.

Bad choice of theme (their first with characters based on inanimate objects, and particularly non-anthropomorphic ones at that), bad marketing, and the movie just wasn't their strongest.  Also, don't forget that except for Nemo, all pixar releases had been thanksgiving.  And the thanksgiving release was the excuse they gave for Incredibles not making as much as Nemo, as well as the reason given for delaying Cars from last thanksgiving to the summer.  That move certainly raised financial expectations.

Using "failure" as if someone actually called it that is a strawman.  Expectations were incredibly high (probably way too high), and the box office didn't meet those expectations.  Simple as that.

Having worked among Disney's WDW Marketing types for several years, I can bluntly say that many of these people are unable to form an opinion without first launching public surveys and studying their silly demographic charts. They are forever missing the forest for the trees.

In contrast, I have often felt that the genius of Walt Disney himself was that he trusted his own gut reaction to something and had the courage of his convictions to just run with it. Interestingly, the interview that Leonard Maltin conducts with Diane Disney (on the new Disney Treasures, "Your Host, Walt Disney" DVD) confirms my belief. She states that Walt always figured if he himself liked something, so would an awful lot of other people too.

If Walt had worried about marketing surveys, demographics and other such claptrap, would he have had Cinderella being best friends with mice or Pinocchio taking advice from a bug? When the character designs are so friendly and appealing, does one even think of these characters as being anything like their real world counterparts? I sincerely doubt it, therefore I can't imagine anybody being turned off by Ratatoille either. Judging from the visuals in the teaser trailer, Ratatoille looks like a really appealing little guy - very cartoony and full of personality. I would expect no less from a film being helmed by Brad Bird, with his talented group of artists carrying out his vision.

"Cars" was a decent movie that I felt was hindered somewhat by poor character design. Had they employed more animated squash and stretch, similar to the vehicles in "Suzy the Blue Coupe" (or Tex Avery's "One Cab's Family"), allowing for more personality through stronger expressions and body language, then they might haver had an even more appealing movie. From what I've seen, "Ratatouille" has a very classic cartoon mindset, with very pliable, fun character designs, reminiscent of the best of Disney's traditional hand-drawn features and shorts. I myself am looking forward to this feature far more than any of the other titiles discussed in this forum.

I love this. The same people who always want Jim to stop talking about Cars are the ones who won't shut up about it. This article was a Ratatouille article. It mentioned Cars a few times (mostly in a positive tone btw), but only to compare Ratatouille to. So how about we all go back to discussing Ratatouille?

As far as I am concerned, Wall Street is not qualified to 'pass judgment' on filmed entertainment.  It's not what they do.  No amount of number-crunching makes them a film critic.  I liked "Cars", and I think that "Ratatouille" looks like it will be even better.  

Wall street only passes judgement on financial performance, not quality of product.  Has anyone ever said that they are or should be a film critic?

I thought the teaser trailer was a delight.  I love the real-ish cartoon rats, I love the cheese references, I love the basic premise.  And I don't think that a teaser in this size gives sufficient enough a glimpse to pan a whole movie on the basis of it.  I suspect that if the WDC goes in with low expectations, all the better: this time they won't be so disappointed by pie-in-the-sky box office estimates.

Well,  I guess I too am going to leave a comment-

In the end, I could care less about Wall Street, or the industry.  They are so far gone from the reality of film making and what the industry is really about, that I cannot take any of them seriously anymore, no matter how  much "that is just the way it is now" arguement.

In the end, I personally am more thrilled with "Meet The Robinsons". That film interests me more so than any other film coming out this year, besides "Enchanted".  

I am more concerned on how Disney is going to market and put out that film. What is the plan there?  

The industry is so far gone from what the industry is really about?! :P

I haven't seen that much marketing for Meet the Robinsons yet, and it's opening on March 30th. So they better hurry, or else people who don't know that the movie is coming won't know in time to get thrilled about the wonderful film.

haha, well I meant that is that most of them have their heads up their a****.  I know, I didn't word it right. :P

Hahaha :) I agree with you on that ;)

(Why I haven't seen any marketing yet: like usual (grrr), Robinsons doesn't open here until f*cking October!!!)

Whatever else happens, I think DreamWorks's "Transformers" will be no competition. Do they really believe this aged toy franchise - loved only by boys, mind you, and boys that are now working adults - will attract a mass audience? Do they think, by comparison, that young adult women and men would flock to "My Little Pony" as a theatrical film?

I am still burned by the "Transformers" display from Comic-Con two years ago, where DreamWorks spent a fortune to put a semi tractor and trailer on a huge amount of display space, covered it with a black tarp printed with the Autobot logo, and thought that was good marketing. DreamWorks seems to be afraid of giving away the slightest hint about the quality or nature of their films in advance. Like they're afraid that Goodtimes Video will produce a ripoff of "Transformers" two weeks before the theatrical run. I think it betrays a lack of confidence in their own productions.

I , for one, and my son are truely excited to see Transformers. I don't care if it is aged, I still have fond memories of the toy line from when I was a kid. I can't wait to share this with my son. Plus, the images from the trailers make the thing look fun.

tomreed1: you call it aged, I call it alive. My cousins (of the right age) are still excited about Transformers, and I know enough people who didn't knew the Transformers before they saw the trailer, and are even though going to see it, because it's more than just a Transformers movie. It will (probably) be a good ACTION and ADVENTURE movie too. With or without the fact if you were/are fan of the Transformers.

I was skeptical about transformers until I saw the trailer.  It looks like it's more in the vein of summer action FX stuff like Independence Day or Armageddon.  It's a movie about giant fighting robots, that will likely bring people in regardless if they're even familiar with the cartoon.

I maintain that you "Transformers" lovers are way in the minority. You may go see the film, but you're the only ones. Face it - if you still have any Transformers toys, you're the target audience for this film - and you're only about one percent of the people needed for the film to get out of negative costs.

Try to think outside the box, and yes, I know if you take it out of the box, it's worthless, but go with me here. Are dating teens likely to see this film? Teens are too young to think nostalgically about the show. To them, "Optimus Prime" sounds like some kind of sex lube. Older adults in their 30's are mostly embarassed about  their involvement with toys. Little kids? The current "Transformers" shows have been dying on Cartoon Network. Kids don't want their parents' fantasies, they want fantasies of their own.

The trailer suggests turning the Transformers into "ID4," ans Minderbender said, and that may cause attenuation in the fanboy audience. "It's not like my beloved Optimus Prime to crush children with his feet!" they'll moan, and there goes the central audience for the film.

I fully expect numbers on the order of "Bewitched," another awful misaimed exercise in nostalgia.

You see it as a purely Transformers toy movie, but many people will not even make the connection because they never saw the program/series. Many people will just go see it because it gots action, fighting and adventure.

(Transformers doesn't even have anything to do with Ratatouille, gihi.)

>"...just ask the guys who work for Disney Consumer Products. They've had a hell of a time trying to convince Disney's licensees to take a flyer on the "Ratatouille" characters. As a direct result, this coming summer, you'll only see about a third as many "Ratatouille" -related products on store shelves as there were "Cars" -related products during the Summer of 2006."

--------

I find that very surprising .  Those rats are some of the cutest , most appealing character designs I've seen in quite some time .

I agree with empoor.  Complaining that the movie is based on toys or cartoons reminds me of the people who complained about Pirates of the Carribean being based on a theme park ride.

And we know how that did.

Fans of the franchise will go see it for the franchise (regardless of how true it is to the original).  And the general public will go see it because the trailer makes it look like an exciting action/fx movie.  Comparing it to Bewitched or other remake flops doesn't really make sense since the major factor is how appealing the movie is to audiences, not what it's based on.  Transformers could flop, but if it does it will be because it's a lousy movie, not because of what it is based on.  You take a well executed action movie with giant killer robots, and it will probably be a hit - slapping the transformers brand on it can only help, not hurt.

A Mouse House insider points to the innovative promotional campaign that's now underway for "Ugly Betty" as an example of what the Walt Disney Company can do that other media conglomerates can't

Jim Hill shares what he's learned about a controversial new study that Disney Brand Management just completed. Which reportedly reveals that at least four of the Pixar film franchises have seriously eroded in value

Want to check out 12 minutes of Brad Bird's brand-new animated feature? Then Jim Hill suggests that you make your way to the Moscone Center this coming weekend. Where Bird & Patton Oswalt will be hosting a preview of Pixar's latest production

Jim Hill takes a moment to answer his critics. Particularly those folks who have grown tired of the JHM articles that touch on the $7.4 billion acquisition that the Walt Disney Company spent to acquire Pixar Animation Studios