Over the past six months, JHM has featured a number of stories that talked about the Walt Disney Company's concerns about "Ratatouille." How the marketing department at the studio has been struggling to find just the right way to promote this new Brad Bird film. (Don't believe me? Then check out these three wildly different takes on how to sell this animated feature. The stateside version of the "Ratatouille" poster tries to sell this CG movie as a slapstick adventure ...
Copyright Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Pixar Animation StudiosAll Rights Reserved
... While one overseas poster for this Pixar picture plays up Remy & Luigini's unlikely friendship ...
... while still another international poster highlights the inherent romance of this movie's Parisian setting).
We've also talked about the Mouse's efforts to manage expectations for Pixar's latest production. So that if "Ratatouille" doesn't sell as many tickets as "Cars" did last summer over its opening weekend ... Well, the press won't then be able to use this film's underwhelming box office performance as an excuse to revisit the whole did-Disney-pay-too-much-for-Pixar question.
Still, looking back on Mickey's behavior, you have to ask yourself : If Disney executives had such little confidence in "Ratatouille" 's audience appeal, why did they then allow production of this movie to go forward? I mean, what's the point of greenlighting a motion picture that your marketing department doesn't know how to sell?
Well ... That's actually Disney's real problem with "Ratatouille." Company executives didn't greenlight this particular Pixar production. You see, "Ratatouille" was never intended to be released by Walt Disney Studios.
Strange but true, folks. Remember back in January of 2004 when Steve Jobs officially broke off talks with Mouse House officials about possibly extending Pixar's co-production deal with Disney Studios? Which meant that -- once "Cars" was delivered to Disney for what was then-supposed-to-be a November 2005 release date -- Pixar would then be a free agent. Free to cut a new distribution / production deal with any other company that they desired.
Copyright Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Pixar Animation Studios. All Rights Reserved
Of course, in order to do that, this Emeryville-based animation studio actually had to have a new film to show these studios. So that they could prove to these very powerful people that Pixar was still capable of producing hit motion pictures without Mickey's input. More importantly, without the Mouse's marketing might to help sell their movies to audiences worldwide.
So -- with this goal in mind (I.E. To come up with the best possible carrot-on-a-stick to dangle in front of all of the studios that were now vying to be Pixar's new distribution / production partner) -- that animation studio's management went through all of the projects that were already in their development pipeline ... and eventually settled on Jan Pinkava's "Rats!"
Mind you, there was method to Pixar's madness. Given that this proposed animated feature was set in Paris, "Rats!" was thought to have international appeal. Which (oddly enough) would be a key factor in the animation studio's upcoming negotiations. Given that Steve Jobs was looking to cut a deal with a corporation that -- just like Disney -- already had a strong global distribution system in place to help sell their films.
Then -- of course -- there was the twitting-Disney factor. After nearly a decade-and-a-half of making movies for the Mouse, what better way was there for Pixar to signal to the world that "That phase in our history is over" than by making a film that starred a rat?
Anyway ... On paper, this seemed like a great idea. And based on the colorful settings & cute characters that Pixar's creative team had developed, "Rats!" did look like it had all the necessary ingredients to become the studio's first post-Disney success ... Except that Jan Pinkava could never quite seem to get the story of his film to jell.
By the late fall of 2004, the "Rats!" production team had put together a story reel to show Pixar management. And while individual elements of the film that Jan Pinkava planned on making were admittedly charming & quite entertaining, its narrative as a whole fell flat. You never really got caught up in Remy's quest to become one of the greatest chefs in France.
Recognizing that "Rats!" (at least in its current form) was not going to be the great carrot-on-a-stick that he had been hoping for, Steve Jobs bought himself a little time by pushing back "Cars" release date from November of 2005 to May of 2006. Jan & his "Rats!" story team were then sent back to their drawing boards with some very specific orders : Make the story stronger and make us really care about the characters' struggles.
In the late spring of 2005, Pinkava delivered his second set of story reels. Which -- while they had these beautifully designed characters & settings with lots of atmosphere -- Jan's movie still lacked narrative oomph. And given that "Rats!" was supposed to be the film that proved to the world that Pixar could succeed without Disney (More importantly, given that this was the project that was supposed to incite other studios to come sign a deal with this Emeryville-based operation) ... Something had to be done to fix this picture's problems. And fast.
(L to R) Brad Bird, Patton Oswalt and Brad Lewis at a "Ratatouille" recording session.Copyright Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Pixar Animation Studios. All Rights Reserved
Enter Brad Bird. Who -- at that time -- had just finished a promotional tour for the DVD version of "The Incredibles" and was getting ready to go on a well-deserved vacation. As Bird recounted to Bob Miller in an interview for the July issue of "Starlog" magazine:
" ... Two weeks before I was set to leave, they asked me to help the 'Ratatouille' people fix up the storyline. So I did that for two weeks, and I got them through the structure and about halfway through Act Three. Then I waved goodbye and said, 'So long, and good luck,' and went on my vacation. I was away for two days when I got phone calls from Steve Jobs, John Lasseter and Ed Catmull, basically asking me if I would come back and take over the project."
And why was it so urgent that Brad come back and ride herd on "Rats!" ? Now turning to an interview that Bird just did with Steve Daly for "Entertainment Weekly" :
"[Jobs, Lasseter & Catmull] were in a tough spot at a very vulnerable time. They were potentially going to be on their own [if they broke away from Disney]. It was the first film -- the only film -- that was greenlit by Pixar alone, without anyone else having anything to do with it. It was an important film to get right." (L to R) Brad Bird directs Peter O'Toole at "Ratatouille" recording session.Copyright Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Pixar Animation StudiosAll Rights Reserved
"[Jobs, Lasseter & Catmull] were in a tough spot at a very vulnerable time. They were potentially going to be on their own [if they broke away from Disney]. It was the first film -- the only film -- that was greenlit by Pixar alone, without anyone else having anything to do with it. It was an important film to get right."
(L to R) Brad Bird directs Peter O'Toole at "Ratatouille" recording session.Copyright Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Pixar Animation StudiosAll Rights Reserved
So given the precarious situation that Pixar now found itself in (I.E. That "Rats!" had to work as a motion picture. Otherwise, Pixar's reputation as a hit-making machine might then get dinged. Which then would make it difficult for the Emeryville-based animation studio to get the best possible terms on its new production / distribution deal), Bird agreed to step in and take control of Pinkava's project.
And as if this situation wasn't already stressful enough, in an interview that Brad did yesterday with Susan King of the Los Angeles Times, the director recounted how ...
"I committed to keeping the animation start date, which is like the start date of principal photography, to hold to the original [opening] date."
... so that Pixar management could then go forward with their original plan. Which was to have their animation studio emerge as Disney's direct competition in the Summer of 2007. And then to have Pixar establish dominance over the rest of the CG field.
Of course, the irony of all this is -- after all this behind-the-scenes drama about making sure that their studio's first post-Disney picture will be as strong as possible -- what does Pixar then do in January of 2006? It allows itself to be acquired by the Walt Disney Company for $7.4 billion.
And -- of course -- part of that agreement was that the Mouse would now have to distribute "Ratatouille," a film that its studio execs had not greenlit, that Disney's own creative team had had zero input on. Which perhaps explains why the Mouse's marketing staff has had such a tough time trying to come up with the proper way to promote "Ratatouille."
Now what's important to understand here is that -- ever since Oren Aviv (I.E. The former head of Buena Vista Pictures Marketing) became the new Creative Officer at Walt Disney Studios -- Mickey doesn't put movies into production that it doesn't already know how to sell. That's one of the main reason that Dick Cook (I.E. Chairman of Walt Disney Studios) significantly cut back on the number of films that the studio would produce each year. So that the Mouse could then concentrate all of its marketing might behind films that it already believes will be box office champions.
Which brings us back to "Ratatouille." More importantly to the promotional campaign that Disney hopes will help would-be moviegoers overcome any problems they may have with seeing rats in a kitchen. Whether or not they were ultimately successful will be determined this coming Monday morning when all of the weekend box office tallies finally come in. But given that -- earlier this week -- studio officials were quietly spreading the word that an opening weekend gross of $55 million (down from the $60 million that was originally projected) now seems very likely ... Well, that news doesn't exactly scream huge box office success. At least to me.
FRIDAY AFTERNOON UPDATE: Well, $55 million used to be what "Ratatouille" was initially projected to make over its opening weekend. Now newly revised tracking for this Brad Bird film has come out, which suggests that it is far more likely that Pixar's latest will only sell $48 - $51 million worth of tickets during its first three days in domestic release. While Nikki Finke over at Deadline Hollywood Daily is saying that "Ratatouille" may earn even less than that, with an opening weekend take of only $40 - $45 million.
If that happens ... Well, you can bet that Wall Street will weigh in come Monday morning. With all sorts of pundits pontificating about Disney's Pixar problem, wondering aloud whether this CG studio is now losing its magic touch.
Mark my words, folks. If "Ratatouille" 's opening weekend numbers are really that low, you're going to see lots of stories just like that next week. Not just here at JHM, but all over the place.
Now I know that I was among the first to point out the potential problems with Pixar's latest production. But it's not like I actually wished Brad Bird or John Lasseter any ill will. So please don't shoot the messenger, okay?
Anyway ... Let's get back to the original version of today's article now, okay? ...
Mind you, the Mouse's marketing department also seems to be having some trouble getting a handle on how to properly promote Pixar's next release, "WALL * E." Several industry insiders that I've spoken with about the teaser trailer for this new Andrew Stanton film have already suggested that it might be a mistake for Disney to try and sell this particular Pixar project as a worthy successor for "Toy Story," "A Bug's Life," "Monsters, Inc." and "Finding Nemo." That this approach may raise would-be moviegoers' expectations so artificially high that the finished film might then have trouble delivering on that promise.
And then there's "Up," Pixar's 2009 release. Pete Docter's next project for the Emeryville-based animation studio which will star a 70-year-old man & an adolescent wilderness ranger who join forces to do battle with various beasts & villains. Which -- given its unique subject matter -- will obviously also be a bit of PR challenge for Mickey.
So is it any wonder that Disney's marketing staff are so looking forward to 2010 when "Toy Story 3" will finally arrive in theaters? Now that movie, the Mouse knows how to sell.
Anyway ... That's why Disney's PR department has been having such a tough time trying to get a handle on the proper way to promote "Ratatouille." Given that the studio was never supposed to be releasing this Brad Bird film in the first place ... Well, perhaps now you may have some sympathy for what the Mouse's marketing staff has been going through. As they struggled to find just the right way to sell Pixar's rat picture.
Your thoughts?
How adorable! The Japanese title of the film is "Remy's Delicious Restaurant!" It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. Normally they just keep the original title word-for-word without translation, but I guess because of the nature of the "rat" pun in a French word in this case this was the better choice.
I did think that the look and feel of this film seemed different from their past stuff, so it makes sense if it was intended to be the first step away from Disney. And a rat would have been a good subtle way to poke fun at Disney.
As for advertising... I think pretty much every movie company needs to fire their advertising department and hire a new staff; their work is pathetic. That is, unless uncreative advertising is being taught in school. "Hard to advertise..." That's their job! It's their job to convince people they need and deserves things nobody really needs, and they can't advertise a movie about a rat chef?
I am a financial advisor who has worked with Disney in the past. I believe the Pixar acquisition is entirely positive for Disney and that this film will be massive profitable for the company. See my blog entry at http://fmvla.com/why_pixar%E2%80%99s_acquisition_was_a_bargain_for_disney
David Davis
Empoor: Being exec. vice-president of creative/chief creative officer/etc. isn't the same as being executive producer on *every single movie*. It isn't common use, to me it says "look at me", even though "executive producer" isn't that high on the producer scale. And just because it's Lasseter people don't think about it, but what if Jeffrey Katzenberg had made himself executive producer on all of Disney movies, including like "Beauty and the Beast" etc.? Than it would have been an issue. But hey, it's not the most important thing in the world, I just said it because it annoys me.
- Could you be any more biased against Lasseter? Take a look at Hollywood for reality. As someone said...Walt had his name before every picture. Jerry Bruckheimer has his name slapped higher on product and is part of the trailer narration. Lasseter is an exec producer. That has nothing to do with ego. The guy is part of the production of these movies.
I was worried about WALL-E until I heard the music from BRAZIL in the trailer. It takes cojones of steel to compare yourself to that film, so...sign me up!
"if Gone With The Wind were coming out for the first time oposite Transformers .... it wouldn't stand a chance."
LOLOLOL
The only time those two films will ever be in the same sentence again.
This article leaves me feeling a little worried about Ratatouille...
But I'm pretty sure that the movie itself will be pretty good, regardless of marketing.
Livergap, TMNT was not a bomb, actually, it turned in a profit. And it will prolly turn in more of a profit by the time the DVDs come rolling out. The Worldwide gross was $92,221,045 and the domestic alone was $54,149,098, the Production Budget alone was $34 million. Either way you cut it, specially for the Weinstein company and TMNT, it turned a profit.
Now, did it blow anyone out of the water? No, but no one expected it to either. Most people were expecting TMNT to have an opening weekend below it's opening weekend of 24 million... and it's garnered enough to feature a sequel which may be announced here shortly... for a film that bombed...getting a sequel?
In case of this little Brad Bird film, I am pumped, and can't wait. I will admit that the film didn't show it's nature to me until I saw the 9 minute preview and then boom, it became something cool. Cos yeah, a rat trying to cook isn't all that great in concept, but... bah. Disney execs are shmucks.
It's no longer in Disney's DNA to sell a movie -- or, for that matter, just about anything -- that's not squarely aimed at kids if it bears the "Disney" name. They've gotta dumb it all down, snazz it all up and make all square pegs fit into Disney's mouse-ear-shaped holes.
That's the trouble. Look at what's become of the theme parks -- they've gone from places of inspiration and imagination to ... kiddielands!
"Ratatouille" is such a marvelous film, it deserves so much more than an ad and marketing campaign that tries to convince the kiddos it's about a wiiiiiiild and craaaaaazy rat who does silly, goofy, funny things. Man, by the time they get to the scene with Linguini making the moves on Collette, they won't know what to think. Or they'll be bored out of their goards ... while adults swoon and fall in love with the movie they thought was just a kid-flick.
There was so much possibility inherent in this movie from a marketing standpoint, and Disney USED TO KNOW how to do this stuff (remember Beauty and Aladdin?), but now ... no, they don't know how to market "anything," they're not the best in the world, frankly ... they're pretty decent at marketing "Disney" stuff directly to kids, but increasingly bad at doing much else. I hope Lasseter and Catmull realize this and start cleaning Disney house!
NArgan - Thanks, I didn't know the budget for it. I guess I was expecting it to do better as I was a big TMNT fan growing up. Looks like it didn't do too well review-wise though. If the Weinsteins are in it for the money, more power to them then.
Thinking about it more, if a movie targetted at all audiences is getting over 90% on rottentomatoes and doesn't perform well at the box office, would you blame the movie makers or the marketers? I've been impressed with Iger's decision-making ability thus far; my guess is he will not fault the Pixar folk for selling out just to make a quick buck and he'll probably look more toward what's going on with marketing (which is what the Eisner-era Disney people probably hate anyway).
Having had an internship at Buena Vista Belgium I really have to mention that the hook of advertising campaigns are regularly adapted to the different countries a movie is released in. In Belgium for instance Tarzan wasn't advertised for with the aggressive adult figure on the posters, but with the cuddly young Tarzan and his friends. I think it strange Jim doesn't know this or needed a nice introduction to another invented story about Pixar.
I don't know..
I just really don't find this film all that interesting. I'll see it because it's Pixar, but it really hasn't "hooked me".
Ratatouille is my favourite Pixar film from the set. It is funny, adorable and it has strong morals.
I have been soooo dissapointed with the Disney Marketing Department over the last couple of years. To rethink back at the horrible job of advertising Bridge of Terrabithia or Meet the Robinsons is appaling. The trailer for Rat was soooo dissapointing, I was not even going to give it a second of my time. I am so sick of slapstick humor cg movies. And this movie is not a slapstick film at all! It is a movie with heart, and they should advertise that!
Pixar has made (and Disney has marketed) movies about the monsters in the closet; being 'kidnapped' from your 'family'; and a family's mother and 499 of the children being eaten by a barracuda, leaving a single dad and kid. You'd think any of these premises would have children running screaming from the theatres and parents vowing never to return.
Comparitavely, marketing a movie about a rat in the kitchen would seem to be a piece of cake. Given Jim's article earlier this week on how some of Disney's suits are hoping Ratatouille will fail, this story on how they're having 'a tough time trying to come up with the proper way to promote "Ratatouille." ' - it's bringing out the conspiracy theorist in me...
Is it difficult to promote a movie with rats in the kitchen, or is it more difficult to promote a movie without suits in the production?
So, if this film is considered not to be a success, it will demonstrate that Pixar could *not* have continued its history of popular, quality filmed entertainment indepedent of Disney. Will that mean that Disney overpaid for Pixar? No, why would it? Disney bought Pixar because *together* they make films that captivate the masses, with great story and the highest-quality CG animation that there is. If a 100% Pixar film fails to live up to the level of success of a Disney-Pixar film, then that only indicates that the two really always needed each other to succeed. Why is that so hard to understand?
I agree with everyone here about the ad campaign for "Meet The Robinsons". It had to be one of the worst I've ever seen. All it ever showed was that DAMN dinosaur (Ad exec: Kids like dinosaurs! They're too stupid to like humor, charm, heart, drama! Let's push the dinosaur!), and I nearly passed on the film because of that. Only until I heard from a friend that the movie was really good-hearted fun did I deign to watch it, and I'm glad I did.
As for the Rat movie, the ad campaign thus far has been brilliant IMO. It's really gotten me to want to watch it (in fact I'm probably going to go see it today). The reviews have been stellar. I hope it succeeds, and if it does, if it overcomes audience weariness with talking-animal movies PLUS the drawback that the hero is a rat - then it's truly a testament to the Disney merchandising machine.