Jim, I love your site and I find your stories incredibly informative.  With that said, your version of the "I told you so" is getting slightly overplayed.   Any longtime reader will know that JIM HILL THINKS THAT DISNEY GROSSLY OVERPAID FOR PIXAR.  Now we're getting to expect that you will exploit any bit of information to that respect in order to prove it.  

I realize that you get more hits when you bash the Disney/Pixar decision but maybe if you started giving us more interesting insights into what the company has in store for the future, or any of the other incredibly exciting things happening within the company— the hits might also spike.  That's why I started reading your site religiously every day.   As a writer, you seem to have become obsessed with proving to your readers that you were right all along.  But to that end, most of us who believe in the merger will not change our opinions that the LONG-TERM POSITIVE OUTCOME will far out-weigh the negative SHORT-TERM misgivings.  

Granted, most of us do not have as much insight into the Disney company as you, which is why we love your site so much.  However, it seems as if you're becoming one of those negative Disney diehards that you seem to be so much against.  

"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will"  Abraham Lincoln (and Pollyanna).  

Well sure kids who were kids when Monsters Inc came out may not be falling over themselves in love with the film now days...opting for PG-13 fare.  But the great thing about kids...is that there are always new ones...yes its true.  As the young ones graduate from the Tea Cups to the Matterhorn, there are new young ones to take their places....

All the kids that enjoyed the princess films when they came out.....many are now grandparents (the Snow, Cindy and Sleepy Beauty age of course)....yet the princesses still endure...huh i wonder why....

I don't see the problem..

Sure that figure for NBX looks low, but it was such a limited release. What did they expect? Theaters have not embraced the digital future so there were not a whole lot of outlets to show NBX in 3D. It was only showing in about 5 theaters within a 500 mile radius of me and I live in central Texas. So I do not think transfering these into 3D should be overlooked as an option.

This article should be retitled "Desperately Seeking Vindication".

Jim keeps trying... This article sorely misses the big picture.  When Disney bought ABC/Cap Cities, folks said they overpaid for THAT, too.

Years later, the property of ESPN alone was worth the purchase.  And now ABC, on its own, is a powerhouse of broadcasting, and creating secondary markets for its product on the internet.  And that says nothing of the synergistic machine that's been enhanced for Disney animated and live-action entertainment through these and the related broadcasting venues that came with ABC/CC.

With the PIXAR deal, Disney didn't just pay for PROPERTIES.  They paid for a braintrust - arguably the single richest braintrust in fantastic feature storytelling.  

This braintrust is and will be informing everything "Disney" for years to come.  What's that worth?  It'll take years, maybe a decade or more, to really get a sense of it.

But Jim must be vindicated, and citing some "study" is only the latest vainglorious reach for that elusive payoff.

"Don't believe me?"

Not to mention the huge impact the braintrust has and will have on WDI.  

Great article, Jim. I understand what you're saying, and agree. Walt Disney Co. should have payed less, but since they didn't there is nothing they can do now. Disney Digital 3-D is not going to help, just put out some Pixar dvd box with all special editions dvds and promote it big, or something. Please no crappy sequels!

This article really pisses me off.

Give it a chance for christ sakes. It's been less than a year!

It seems this is Hill's chin's personal opinion rather than anything published by Disney.

The people at Pixar are filmmakers first. Who the hell WANTS to see sequels to these pictures anyway?!! They're supposed to be one offs in the first place. It's the sick and twisted money making corporate suits at Disney that may want to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs, though surely even they know that it takes time for a merge like this to come to fruition and that they will only reap the rewards on a longer term.

As far as the merchandise goes, if Disney marketed the movies from which these clothes/toys/books/etc. are from, then the merchandise would sell better.  For example, I was at The Disney Store last week.  "Peter Pan" stuff was everywhere, including on the TV.  

To market the films from which this new merchandise is to be from, people actually have to be able to buy them.  Are any of the Pixar films in the vault at the moment?  If so, bring them on out and let people know about them.  If they are still in print, then maybe have a Pixar section of The Disney Store...that might be a good way to sell the merchandise.

Many adults buy Disney merchandise, even if they don't have kids.  Just because some kids don't like these films doesn't mean that adults don't.  I have the majority of "Finding Nemo" characters in plush form, and I have no kids.  They just need to market different products to different interest groups.

I've been on the fence about the merger since it happened.  I'm happiest about Disney being able to have control over the movies and characters.  Even if that's all Disney gained control of (instead of buying Pixar), I'd be happy.  I also probably wouldn't have seen any non-Disney Pixar film (because I only like Disney animated movies...I'm weird).  Anyhoo, my biggest concern over the merger is that the parks will become Pixarland (Nemo, TS, MI, Cars- coming to a park near you)...where are the new attractions based on Disney movies?  

Forgot something- I also am concerned about Lasseter having so much control over the Disney movies.  I'm worried that he'll want them to be like Pixar films.  Which they're not.  Those are my concerns.

Not gonna fall for it Jim. Pixar's aquisition was a good choice. I stand by Disney on this one. We're NOT gonna get into another 'Cars is a failure' article. Not EVERY disney franchise is going to be pirates, or princesses. I saw Disney's annual report. Theyre not exactly doing poorly. Their #'s are up.

Hi Jim,

I had to chuckle at your subheading here where you mention the Pixar franchise's.  A couple of years ago there was a big Pixar article in WIRED magazine which had a great quote from Andrew Stanton: "Whenever anyone uses the word 'franchise' around here, we b!*©#-slap them." Obviously, the Pixar story brain trust doesn't look at marketing in traditional ways.

I think (like it matters to Iger, Catmull, et al what I think) that Pixar's dollar value rests more on the future potential rather than re-visiting the past. They merely purchase the library of a dead studio, but a living entity in its prime... at least, that's the hope.

As far as marketing "Ratatouille" goes, I remember years ago working with a film buyer from a major theatre chain. She had just visited Show West and reported that the buzz was that Disney was worried about the potential struggles of marketing all the supporting cast from "Beauty & the Beast". After all, what kid wants a candlestick in his Happy Meal? Where's the cuddle factor?! Well, they seemed to bridge that gap okay.

It's the filmmaker's job to make the marketing department's job easy. (i.e. Story) So far, Pixar's track record has been pretty consistent.

NBX may have bombed because it was definitely a limited release but I can tell you, the two screenings I went to were absolutely packed.  The Pixar movies could theoretically benefit from the 3-D enhancements.  Particularly Finding Nemo, Toy Story 2, Bug's Life and the Incredibles.  

The Incredibles are kiddie stuff?!?  I bought an Incredibles Baseball jersey at Disneyland last year.  A simple Red jersey with The Incredibles across the chest and the logo on the arm sleves.  I wear it all the time, even at work on casual friday.  Adults constantly say "cool jersey" and "where did you get that."  I respond with "Disneyland."  Their reaction is a disappointed "Oh."  That is your problem.  The Incredibles probably has the most adult oriented audience of all the Pixar movies.  The merchandise just isn't available outside of the parks.

You need to check your figures when talking about Nightmare. I think you read your tea leaves wrong.

Nightmare Before Christmas In 3-D a Huge Bomb? Come on now. The film only did $50 million in it's inital release in 1993, which I remember was being labeled a failure then. Only through video has this film acheived the cult status it has. $8.7 million isn't bad when you consider how FEW digital projection systems are in use in the United States now. At last count, it was around 800. You wouldn't expect this film to open and play on all 800 at once would you? With the process now complete, this film can re-play in theatres in digital 3-D every year from now on for very little cost and probably still rake in a couple of million per year. I think Jim is a little off base with this one.

Not all of these movies seem to lend themsleves to a sequel.  Nemo, Bugs and Cars all seem to have told their story and I don't see much interest in revisiting.  Monsters... maybe.  The obvious sequel would be for the Incredibles.  Not only does the end of the movie set up for future adventures, audiences have shown with Spiderman, X-men, etc. that they want to see their favorite superheroes in new adventures.  I think the Incredibles could be set up for a two-sequel trilogy and be a huge boost for their continued popularity and merchandising.  We've seen Pixar make one great sequel (TS2) and I'm sure they could do the same with the incredibles IF they chose to.

Jim, The "bah, humbug!" Christmas season is over. Let the suits worry about marketing, and let Pixar create. Wall Street seems to be happy now too.

Probably they just have to wait for the kids who were little when these films came out, and are now interested in PG13 movies, to get a little bit older. They'll get over the whole "I'm a grown-up now! whooo!" stage, and then they'll start to appreciate the films they loved in their childhood again.

That's my theory at least.

To be honest Jim you've been against the whole Pixar deal since day one so why should we take anything you say seriously when it comes to Pixar and Disney.You tried to down play the release of Cars for no reason.If you really want to criticise any of Disney's recent moves lets have a update on The Muppets perhaps!

Incredibles leads itself to have sequels or possibly a TV show.  Monsters Inc could get a sequel or TV show as well. There are a lot of stories that could be told with monsters and superheros.  I think it is too late for a sequel to Bugs Life, but they do promote the characters at the parks quite a bit.  Maybe they could do things with zoos, etc to have a traveling bug exhibit with characters from the film.  Finding Nemo could do similar things with fish at aquariums around the country.  They should also have Finding Nemo fish supplies at stores.  

I think there is a problem with the Pixar properties, and it is this: CGI is no longer the exclusive domain of Pixar. Every movie studio in the planet, plus free-lance media companies, are doing CGI, with more or less success. That has watered down Pixar's unique appeal to some degree. Granted, Pixar still blows everybody else out of the water when it comes to CGI rendering, storytelling and character development. But the novelty of CGI has worn off, and that's affecting Pixar as well as everyone else who uses that medium.

But you know, as much as I dislike sequels, there may be some merit in Pixar investing in them. Sequels can re-introduce characters to a populace overwhelmed with alternatives. Revisiting Sully and Mike (Monsters Inc.) and Buzz and Woody (Toy Story) can only be a GOOD thing if the script is solid. Pixar's best movies have characters with real personality, characters we feel we know and like. (Unlike the countless cookie-cutter talking-animal movies that infested theatres last summer).  Mickey Mouse still appears in movies, after all (and he's ripe for a really good feature film comeback IMO), so why shouldn't the Pixar gang? I'd love to see another Incredibles film. I see real potential there. So yeah, I'm all for sequels, if they're done with the same inventiveness as had Toy Story 2.

If you ask me, Jim, the property Disney overpaid for was the Muppets. Over at Muppet Central.com, there's a rumor that a 10-minute "muppet mockumentary" pilot has been filmed and is being reviewed by the Disney suits for a possible launch as a new Muppet show. So Disney is still trying, but for my money, it may be better to cut losses and sell or shelve that particular property...

If the problem, as someone mentioned earlier, is on the basis of the current kids' market, wouldn't they just have to re-introduce the characters from the four ailing movies to the next generation? (And y'all know that I'm NOT talking about making annoying sequels!) Couldn't they just re-release the films theatrically every few years, as was once a Disney tradition that kept people interested in Fantasia, Peter Pan, and the rest of the Disney library?

By the way, the formatting for Wall-E sounds pretty good.

Nighmare in 3-D may have only pulled in $8.5 million domestically, but it's per theater average was $19.5K since it was only released in 168 theaters. For comparison Finding Nemo's per theater average was $20.8K. I'd call that a huge success for Nightmare rather than a box office bomb. I think it is a strong motivator to convert more theaters into Disney-Digital 3-D and to continue to make 3-D versions of it's films.

My favorite part of this latest in the series of "THE PIXAR AQUISITION IS A DISASTER" series is the part where Jim acknowledges that the Cars characters (you know ... that terrible, terrible bomb Pixar released last year??) are right up there with Toy Story's characters in the mind's of kids.

I'm getting a Save Disney Sucks vibe again, Jim. If your sole goal is to make people angry and boost your page hits with these stories, then you're doing well. If you're looking for stories that people find interesting, engaging, and BELIEVEABLE then you're falling flat on your face.

BTW....by the time Pixar would have sequels out to the films needing the boost with todays kids.....those kids would not be kids anymore......

your logic is flawed....

Jim, Jim, Jim.  I'm with the unsilent majority on this one.

I remember when Chrysler bought American Motors.  "Bad move," I said, yet they have done wonders with the Jeep brand.  I remember when ABC bought ESPN.  "Bad move," I repeated.  "They already have ABC sports."  Yet look what they have done with the brand.  Paul McCartney, Yoko Ono and I thought Michael Jackson paid too much for the Beatles' publishing catalogue, but he envisioned using the songs for commercials and other things the band itself had never considered, and he made money off that investment.

So when Disney acquired Pixar, I learned to look beyond the short term and see what the brand - and talent - could do in the future.  Not only did Disney acquire the most creative team around, but they also kept that team from jumping to another company that might have wanted to make a big splash in the animation field (think of all the giant movie companies who do not have an animation division).  Disney acquired characters (although many were already Disney property), which leads to cross-promotion.  Yes, kids are growing out of some characters, but adults are growing into them.  The first thing I thought of was "hey - I buy Incredibles stuff," and then TikiBird73 beat me to the punch.  Adults buy this stuff too!

This takes us back to the predictions for how well a film must do to meet expectations.  If you set your sights too high financially, you will often be disappointed.  If you set your sights reasonably, and concentrate on a quality product, you will be pleasantly surprised.  I know bean-counters don't like surprises of any kind - but moviegoers like pleasant ones!  (Toy Story 1, Borat, Night at the Museum - pick any so-called "sleeper").

I say it will take more than one year to fully assess the quality of this acquisition.  And we may never truly know the ripple effects.  So just accept it!

A couple of thoughts...

- The new Finding Nemo show at Animal Kingdom seems to be packing in the crowds and getting good buzz, so perhaps there's life in the old fish yet. [BTW, the cast album just popped up on iTunes, even though it's not yet on sale in the Parks.]

- re: jayjayny's's Lincoln quote -- that's one of my favorite quotes, too, and I was surprised when, on the audio commentary for the Pollyanna DVD, writer/director David Swift said that he himself had created the quote and was amazed to find "Pollyanna lockets" on sale at Disneyland with the very same quote, also attributed to Lincoln! Just goes to show how creative license can be taken for fact. But no matter who said it, it's a great quote.

Everyone in the movie industry knows, and Disney should definitely know, that most of the merchandise sells you will make for a movie comes within a 2-3 year window starting from just the time a movie is released to about a year after the movie has hit dvd.

That would be like me being surprised that Disney isn't making a lot of money off of these movies anymore: Aladdin, Lion King, Beauty and the Beast ect.  They all made a lot of money upon release in theatres and video but now make little in comparision.  That's the business.  If you want to make some more off an older movie you either have to release it again to theatres or video, which Disney is great at doing, or find another way to build the franchise.

Disney will continue to make lots of money from Toy Story merchandise with a third  installment coming out, having Buzz Lightyear rides in the park and the upcoming Midway Mania.  They should also continue to do well with the Finding Nemo brand as children will continue to discover Nemo and friends at Epcot and Disney Subs and kids are going to snatch up merch.  Cars merch should be well for another 6 months to a year and then you could do fine with Carsland at DCA.  Anyway, you look at it Disney has made good use of the Pixar properties so far and will continue to do well with them as they do what they do best.  Re-introducing new generations of children to their characters through re-releasing videos, making attractions, and sequels.  No one expects Disney to make their money back overnight, but they will make it back and it will be a very profitable purchase.

"Mickey_Hal said:

Everyone in the movie industry knows, and Disney should definitely know, that most of the merchandise sells you will make for a movie comes within a 2-3 year window starting from just the time a movie is released to about a year after the movie has hit dvd."

Which is exactly why Jim's entire premise is completely bogus. Disney can't have been expecting to make a fortune off of exploiting Pixar's past successes (if they could exploit past successes, why not exploit their own?? There are a few successful Disney animated features, you know ... ).

No one with any sense would expect that. They acquired Pixar for several reasons ... one, to stop them from defecting to another company and becoming Disney's chief competitor ... two, to allow them to hold on to the licensing rights for the characters they do want to continue exploiting (i.e. Toy Story) ... three, to bring in house their creative talent and put them to use restoring the Mouse House to its former glory ... and four, to help repair some of the decades long ill will Eisner had generated among the masses.

Making a few bucks off Nemo is nothing but gravy on this deal.

As divorce week continues:

If George Lucas hadn't gotten a divorce, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Pixar would still belong to George, who has shown himself to be a fairly tough negotiator, knows how to get a film distributed and marketed, and even knows a little about selling toys. Disney Co., if even involved, would be making very little money off the Pixar characters. I'd say Disney Co is way ahead at this point.

Man, reports like this scare me--not Jim's report, but the Brand Management report.

Just repeat that out loud---"Brand Managment Office."  Doesn't that sound like a group of people who understand how to make magic for kids?

When those Pixar movies that are now allegedly losing value came out, what exactly were they sequels too?  Because this report seems to indicate that the only way to make money and connect with kids is to vomit up rehashed versions of what they've alread seen.

Hopefully, Disney is smart enough to toss this report right out the window.  Those older Pixar movies DO give Disney the blueprint on how to make money.  But it's nto my rehasing and reselling the same thing--it's by creating new, and exciting, and fresh entertaiment.  

The value in Pixar old movies is that they bring a richness and diverseness to Disney's library that they can draw upon to enrich their theme parks or enspire new artists who will grow up to create the new classics.  But the real value in Pixar isn't in the purchase of their library, but is attaining the services and talents of all those amazing artists who made those original films hits in the first place.  There can be a lot more money found in the future, then in the past.

What is very clear is that the MBA's who litter the halls of departments like Brand Management and "Supply Chain & Operations Strategy"  (yes that's a REAL department at TWDC) are the PROBLEM not the SOLUTION.  It was making business moves based on the findings of these non-creative types that has led to so many of the poor decisions of the last 15 years.

Let the creatives decide on product and let the rest of the dog follow, not vice-versa.

Don't get too worked up over that supposed "Brand Management Report".

Read Jim more carefully.  Here's what he said, and what he builds his whole furor over:

"According to SEVERAL COMPANY INSIDERS that I've spoken with, this Brand Management study SUPPOSEDLY targeted several key age brackets, chief among them kids. And what these Disney officials ALLEGEDLY learned is that..."

See what's going on there?  You can qualify anything and get away with it later, saying "Well, that's what I heard".

If Disney only "allegedly" learned something, then why is Jim even listening to insiders?  "Allegedly" means this report might not have even taken place at all.

Such a vaunted proposition, based on what?  A need to be vindicated for all those previous articles slamming Disney for spending so much on their acquisition.

I absolutely agree with the top two posts here.  And in addition, I'd say that this research is flawed!  My experience with kids I know, and the kids that THEY know, is that the Incredibles is still pretty hot with them, but there is no merchandise being made now for them.  They're playing with toys that have a couple of years of wear in them, whereas the Toy Story stuff has always been available, and was refreshed by being a two picture property and having a successful television spinoff.  Monster's Inc. could have probably done as well with a television version or a sequel, and The Incredibles could have the perennial appeal of any superhero IP with the right nurturing.

Wufners makes a good point too- who are the Brand Management Office and why should anyone give a damn about their opinions?  Will they advise content?  Will they shape projects into earnings leaders?  Ridiculous.  

Jim, your tired editorial drum beating against Pixar as an entity devalues this website, and makes the experience tiring for your readers.  Get another tune and play it, willya?

Okay, Jim. As a longtime reader who hasn’t felt the need to get on the board until now, let me say a couple things. I remembered a few months back when you wrote that you’d stick to doing one business story a week, primarily on Mondays, but that you’d mix things up between what older readers loved and newer readers expected. Yet, to date, I honestly can’t remember the last time I clicked on a headline, fully anxious to tear into a story. Every day I come to the site hoping for a little insider info on what to look forward to or what might’ve been.  However, as of lately, it seems that every story I read lately falls into one of 3 categories: 1) book/dvd review, 2) obscure news stories with opinion, and 3) business-related pieces concerning the finances of the Walt Disney Company.

What happened to the stories about attractions that were never built? What happened to the behind the scene details on the ones that did? Where are the stories about attractions currently in the works? Where are the stories concerning the making of our favorite Disney feature length cartoons? For God’s sake, man, what ever happened to the Why Fors? I recently attended one of those Dining with an Imagineer dinners, and was told that there’d be a major rehab of Haunted Mansion in Disney World. What can we expect? I don’t mind two, three, even four stories per week on the financial side of things, but, c’mon Jim, at least once a week, throw a dog a bone. We’re starving for a little behind the magic info.

As for the Disney acquisition of Pixar, I think it was a necessary move. On their own, Disney hasn’t produced a newer animated character that has connected with audiences since Stitch, and, before that, I’m guessing the next most recent would be the characters from the Lion King. The way I see it, Hercules, Treasure Planet, Pocahontas, Mulan, Atlantis, Tarzan, Hunchback, and Brother Bear never really connected with audiences. You need fresh characters to breathe new life into attractions, merchandise, etc., and the Pixar characters have done just that. Personally, I think its funny how Cars was supposed to be such a flop, yet there characters are listed among the few who are NOT declining in popularity. Bottom line is that Disney is a marketing machine that’s still wringing life out of characters that first caught on with the public over 70 years ago. They won’t be losing ANY money on the Pixar deal.

I recall when Roy made his speech at that infamous Disney Shareholders' meeting several years back that he ridiculed all those marketing types who speak in their buzzword lingo, throwing around such silly terms as "Franchise", "Brand", "Consumer Value" and other such nonsense. "Brands are for cattle!" claimed Roy, as he explained to us all that Disney films and characters are so much more than that.

I'm with Roy on that - all these buzzwords are the language of the untalented, non-creative twits that not only flourished during the Michael Eisner Reign of Error, but apparently still infest the dark, mouldy crevices of Walt's once great wonderland. Too bad we weren't able to sweep 'em all out to the curb.

No film has legs forever. I agree with WDWacky's point that the merchandising window starts to close up within a year or so after the DVD release. This fact has no bearing on the calibre of the film itself. The Pixar films are all fine entertainment, but , just like the Disney classics before them, there comes a time when most kids outgrow them. Even Walt knew that the kids who loved his movies when they first came out would have other greater interests by the time they hit their teen years. Still, he knew that some of them would be back later, once they hit their early adulthood and started having kids of their own. That's when the warm, fuzzy feelings of nostalgia come flooding back, and they want their kids to discover the magic in these films of their own childhood. So it will be with the Pixar films too - and the DVDs and plush toys can be rolled out to a new generation.

Funny thing - the idiotic Brand Management Office continues to thrive while Disney unceremoniously drove the entire art staff out of their Consumer Products Division just this past October. These were the talented artists who lovingly created wondrous collectibles for the Disneyana enthusiasts, through the Disney Stores and Disney Catalogue. Their attention to detail and knowledge of the films impressed all of we collectors immensely, yet Disney Management just couldn't see it despite the highly respectable sales, so off to the chopping block they went. The result is that Disney collectors checking out the current online Disney Catalogue will find mostly the same old mass-market merchandise that is readily available on the toy shelves of their local Wal*Mart. Pity that...

Well, I've been a long-time reader, and while I genreally agree with Jim on everything about the Pixar deal and feel Pixar is overrated, I think he's gone too far here. I want to make a few points with my first post.

1. How can you say "The Incredibles" is loosing it's audience? Seriously, it's probably Pixar's most popular film by now(thankfully, Nemo has lost it's underserved hype). I know several people who have near no interest at all in animation, but really like "The Incredibles". It truely does have the biggest adult appeal of the Pixar films and generally is loved by everyone(unless your a comic book fan like me and can't stand how it felt like a gigantic copy of "The Fantastic Four"). I can understand what your saying about the other three(although considering all the promotion for that stupid clownfish, and that lame-sounding "Midway Mania" thing Lasseter has planned for MGM/DCA, I don't exactly buy it's "loosing appeal") but "The Incredibles" has a pretty big fan club and can't see it loosing popularity anytime soon.

2. WTF? "Nightmare Before Christmas in 3-D" a flop? Granted, I don't know how much it costed total to make it in 3-D(although I suspect Jim doesn't either) but for a film with that's been out for years and got released with a limited released, it at least did better than to be called a "flop". It's like calling "Cars" a flop. It MIGHT have disappointed, but didn't flop.

3. I disagree with everyone on Pixar making sequels. Yes, they supposably do have a track-record of avoiding sequels, but personally, I've seen no prood that Pixar hates sequels. Afterall, most of there films are so episodic and have "incomplete endings", that it seems like they always were destined to have sequels.

Finding Nemo has such an episodic structure, it easily could've been made a weekly t.v. show. I think they could easily make a "flip-flop" sequel(like they do with DTVs) and make Dory trying to find her family or something, afterall, Dory is a really dull character, we don't know anything about her past except her unfunny "Memory Loss" joke. A sequel could easily be made.

And afterall, they DID make Toy Story 2, and are developing a Toy Story 3.

So honestly, I don't see Pixar being so creative that they never make sequels, or make their films completely closed from the option.

Pixar may have been a big expense but at least Disney is doing something with the "over-paid for" entity. What are they doing with The Muppets? They bought them from Henson in 2004, they finished off some projects that already in motion prior to the sale and have just sat on the brand for over a year doing nothing! What's going on over at The Muppet Holding Company? How are they saving that franchise (and Bear in the Big Blue House) which they bought and have done nothing at all with? PIXAR is working and will work out any problems, but The Muppets just seem doomed at Disney.

Mickey Duck said:

//My experience with kids I know, and the kids that THEY know, is that the Incredibles is still pretty hot with them, but there is no merchandise being made now for them. //

This is what it boils down to: you can't make money off of something you don't sell.

After all, I have a friend who is a huge fan of Hunchback, and when I was at WDW, I asked her if she wanted me to bring her back anything, and all she wanted was something with Esmerelda.  Outside of a Christmas ornament (which I didn't think she'd want), the ONLY thing I could find was a set of promotional postcards and I guess a promotional lithograph at Sid Cahuenga's.  Couldn't even find a pin.  And while I don't expect Disney to start churning out merchandise for Hunchback, it just shows you...the only merchandise you can sell is the merchandise you make available.

In terms of sequels, the only time a sequel should be done is if there's a story to be told.  If they come up with an idea for a sequel to Nemo, fine, go for it.  But the first film worked as a self-contained piece; besides, look at the title.  Finding Nemo.  Unless Nemo is seperated again, they would need a new title, which creates problems in establishing a brand identity (I know, I'm getting into those words).  The title was tied directly into the plot, so a story with an entirely different premise really shouldn't be called Finding Nemo 2.  Of all the Pixar flicks (outside of Toy Story), I'd peg the Incredibles as the best possible franchise starter.

Jim is up to his old tricks again.

Everyone basically voiced my viewpoint on this ridiculous article already, but I will add one thing.  I’m a cast member at The Disney Store, and I can tell you there is no shortage of guests consistently asking for and buying up The Incredibles and Finding Nemo merchandise.  Toys, PJ’s, apparel, heck…even magic towels.  I’m also happy to report that Monster’s Inc loot is also highly in demand…if only we had anything to sell them!

This article is nothing more than a desperate attempt for attention and more of those ratings surges Hill was enjoying during the peak of the Cars bash fest of last year.  Bad show Jim!

I just have to add...I was at a Vietnamese restaurant tonight with several tropical fish tanks.  In the seven minutes waiting for a table, I heard children from three separate families exclaim "Nemo!" when they saw the clown fish swimming around.  I don't think there's any problem with brand identity there.

What age were these people who called "The Incredibles" kids' stuff? When I was a teenager I went through a phase where I thought everything Disney was kids' stuff. Now I'm in my 20's and I love it again, but I sure wouldn't have told you that was going to happen when I was 17.

Disney (and all studios) -

Please forget about all this brand management focus group malarkey and just make great films with great characters and market them well. The profits will come to you - and, if for some reason they don't, well at least you've made great films.

I posted this in the Why For thread, but I feel like posting it here too.  No one in these talkbacks has brought up the fact that the whole logic behind this article is totally bogus. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Disney own the Pixar characters from the movies that Disney released anyway? Isn't that why they were going ahead with Toy Story 3 without Pixar's involvement, which really pi$$ed of Lasseter and company? Even if Pixar and Disney had gone separate ways, Disney still would have owned the rights to use Buzz and Woody, Flik, Mike and Sully, Nemo, The Incredibles, etc. Under their previous arrangement, I believe that either Cars or the forthcoming Ratatouille would be the last film that Disney distributed and owned the rights to. Again if Pixar had gone its own way, do we think that Disney would have stopped selling Pixar related merchandise, etc.? Would they have rethemed Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin to Chicken Little's UFO Chase? No... this was never worried about because Disney owned and would have continued marketing those characters and their universes.... So, the point is, in Disney's buyout of Pixar, they were not paying for past characters, period!  They already owned them!  They were paying for future characters and a braintrust that they could use to reinvigorate the creative portion of the company.  Jim knows this and yet concocts this article anyway so that he can further his agenda...

First of all, Disney bought Pixar with stock. Not a dollar changed hands; all paper. Having gone thru one of those myself at my old company, I can say that it's only bookkeeping. There is no 7.5 billion dollar hole in the Disney checkbook.

Secondly, it boils down to the beancounters are stressing because they can't conceive of any more ways to squeeze out another buck of some Pixar films. The reason they are beancounters is that they have zippo creativity in their dull grey little souls. In fact, if they manifest one tiny little ounce of creativity in a spreadsheet or process review meeting or sales projections powerpoint presentation, they will be escorted to the Disney door. They need to sit back and let the artists create the reasons for the beancounters continued employment. Heck, they should probably let the Pixar folks come up with toys from the films. Betcha they'd be a lot more fun than yet another Nemo pen and pencil set.

Seriously, you are becoming the punch line to a bad joke.  Let it go, buddy.

I saw the 3-D version of "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and it gave me a headache. 90+ minutes of 3-D was too much for me.

JHM's most popular column finally emerges from its long winter's nap, as Jim Hill answers your questions about a cut scene from "The Rocketeer," Goofy's original voice as well as soliciting your opinions about this site's editorial direction