By now, you've probably heard that -- over this past weekend -- "Ratatouille" finally officially achieved really-for-real blockbuster status. Earning over $200 million during its initial domestic run.
Mind you, it did take this new Brad Bird film quite a while to reach that milestone. As you can see by the chart below ...
... Of the six Pixar films that earned at least $200 million over their initial domestic runs, "Ratatouille" took the longest. In fact, I've been told by several Disney insiders that the studio was so concerned that this animated feature might not achieve blockbuster status before the Labor Day Weekend was over that the Mouse actually increased the number of theaters that "Ratatouille" was being shown in. Bumping up the number of screens that this Pixar picture was being screened on this past Friday from 956 to 1068.
"Ah, but what does that matter how long it took, Jim?," you say. " 'Ratatouille' has finally officially achieved blockbuster status. Isn't that something worth celebrating?"
Well, the Walt Disney Company would certainly like you to think so. Which is why -- over the next few days -- you're going to see the usual self-congratulatory full-page ads in the trades. Not to mention those press releases that talk about how happy the studio supposedly is with the way that "Ratatouille" has performed to date.
Copyright 2007 Pixar Animation Studios / Disney Enterprises, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Of course, were you to ask the people who work in Mickey's marketing department about what Mouse House senior management really thinks about this particular Pixar production's box office performance, you'd hear a very different story. One that involves a lot of finger-pointing as well as people attempting to shift blame to other departments at the studio.
"But why would people want to assign blame when it comes to 'Ratatouille' 's domestic box office performance?," you ask. Well, you have to understand that -- up until this last Brad Bird film -- Pixar productions have always finished in the Top 5 during their initial domestic runs.
Don't believe me? Okay. Let's go to the charts. "Toy Story" was the No. 1 film domestically back in 1995 ...
"A Bug's Life" came in fourth in 1998's domestic box office derby ...
"Toy Story 2" came in third back in 1999 ...
"Monsters, Inc." finished fourth back in 2001 ...
"Finding Nemo" was No. 2 back in 2003 ...
"The Incredibles" came in fifth back in 2004 ...
While "Cars" grabbed the 3 spot in last year's domestic box office derby.
Whereas "Ratatouille" ... Well, as of yesterday, this Pixar production found itself dropping down to No. 8 ...
... having just been knocked out of the No. 7 berth by "The Bourne Ultimatum."
And given the domestic market is now pretty much tapped out for this particular Pixar production (Just last week, "Ratatouille" was struggling to pull in $120,000 - $130,000 for its stateside weekday performances. And given that most of the kids in the U.S. are headed back to school today, you can now expect this movie's numbers to fall straight through the floor) and given that there are still 17 movie-going weeks left in 2007 ... It is quite possible that -- between now and New Year's Eve -- three more movies that can gross over $200 million domestically will come along. With one of those films most likely being Walt Disney Pictures' "Enchanted."
The way I hear it, the folks up in Emeryville are not happy about this prospect. Not just because "Ratatouille" has already been knocked out of the Top 5. But because -- for the first time ever -- there is the very distinct possibility that this animation studio's latest release will not be in the domestic Top 10 as 2007 draws to a close.
This is why there's now a new party line when it comes to discussing "Ratatouille" 's box office performance. Nowadays, Pixar die-hards don't really like to talk about how this Brad Bird film did during its domestic run. They'd much rather prefer to discuss how well this animation studio's latest release is doing overseas.
Of course, the only problem with doing that is that it then opens the window to comparing "Ratatouille" 's grosses to those for "The Simpsons Movie." And while it no longer seems likely that this 20th Century Fox release will be able to eclipse that Pixar picture's domestic earnings, "The Simpsons Movie" is still kicking "Ratatouille" 's butt overseas (i.e. Having earned $291.0 million versus $172.3 million to date).
Then when you factor in that "The Simpsons Movie" allegedly only cost $75 million to produce ... Well, that means that this Fox film will be in the black a whole lot sooner than "Ratatouille" will. Which -- given that this Brad Bird film (due to all of its production problems) reportedly cost $150 million to complete -- is something of a sore point with the suits back in Burbank.
Copyright 2007 20th Century Fox. All Rights Reserved
And speaking of people being sore ... Let's get back to all that finger-pointing that's been going on in Burbank. All because the folks up in Emeryville are reportedly blaming the Mouse House's marketing team for "Ratatouille" 's under-performance at the box office.
As the story goes, the people at Pixar are now supposedly saying that this Brad Bird film didn't do as well as it could have domestically because Disney dropped the ball. They insist that Mickey's marketing staff didn't put together a really effective promotional campaign for this particular Pixar production.
As you might imagine, claims like this make the folks who actually work in Disney's marketing department completely crazy. As one studio insider that I recently spoke with put it:
Copyright 2007 Pixar Animation Studios / Imagination Farms. All Rights Reserved
We put together the best possible campaign that we could for 'Ratatouille.' Sure, this movie got great reviews. But this was a very difficult picture to sell during an incredibly competitive summer. To be honest, we're lucky that this movie did as well as it did. Pixar is now claiming that we didn't put together a good enough trailer for 'Ratatouille.' They say that this is the main reason that their newest movie didn't do as well domestically as 'Cars' did. Which is why they're now being complete b*stards about the 'WALL-E' trailer. Insisting that only they know the proper way to promote their next picture. Our counter-argument is that if we didn't put together the campaign that we did for 'Ratatouille,' putting that 9-minute excerpt out there on the Web, holding those sneak previews two weeks out, that there's no other way that we could have built better word-of-mouth for this movie. If we hadn't done that level of promotion, spent that money the way we did, they'd have been lucky if this film had done 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the business that it eventually did stateside. Copyright 2008 Pixar Animation Studios / Disney Enterprises, Inc. All Rights Reserved But because Pixar never, ever makes mistakes, we're now the ones who have to take the blame. But that's okay. Let them call the shots on "WALL-E" 's marketing campaign. Next year, they'll be the one who'll be taking the fall when that Andrew Stanton film doesn't measure up to expectations. Because if you thought that it was tough to sell a movie where a rat runs loose in a kitchen, wait 'til you try & come up with an effective marketing campaign for a movie that stars robots who don't talk. Which is set on a version of Planet Earth that's just this abandoned trash heap that's floating in space. Try selling that as a fun summer film for the whole family to see.
We put together the best possible campaign that we could for 'Ratatouille.' Sure, this movie got great reviews. But this was a very difficult picture to sell during an incredibly competitive summer. To be honest, we're lucky that this movie did as well as it did.
Pixar is now claiming that we didn't put together a good enough trailer for 'Ratatouille.' They say that this is the main reason that their newest movie didn't do as well domestically as 'Cars' did. Which is why they're now being complete b*stards about the 'WALL-E' trailer. Insisting that only they know the proper way to promote their next picture.
Our counter-argument is that if we didn't put together the campaign that we did for 'Ratatouille,' putting that 9-minute excerpt out there on the Web, holding those sneak previews two weeks out, that there's no other way that we could have built better word-of-mouth for this movie. If we hadn't done that level of promotion, spent that money the way we did, they'd have been lucky if this film had done 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the business that it eventually did stateside.
Copyright 2008 Pixar Animation Studios / Disney Enterprises, Inc. All Rights Reserved
But because Pixar never, ever makes mistakes, we're now the ones who have to take the blame. But that's okay. Let them call the shots on "WALL-E" 's marketing campaign. Next year, they'll be the one who'll be taking the fall when that Andrew Stanton film doesn't measure up to expectations.
Because if you thought that it was tough to sell a movie where a rat runs loose in a kitchen, wait 'til you try & come up with an effective marketing campaign for a movie that stars robots who don't talk. Which is set on a version of Planet Earth that's just this abandoned trash heap that's floating in space. Try selling that as a fun summer film for the whole family to see.
I know, I know. This is probably far too downbeat a story for all you dyed-in-the-wool Disney & Pixar fans out there. Who just want to celebrate the fact that "Ratatouille" finally achieved really-for-real blockbuster status during its initial domestic run.
Well, based on what the folks in Disney's marketing department have been telling me ... This time around, it's only the fans who are celebrating. Meanwhile down in Burbank and up in Emeryville, people are still trying to figure out what went wrong with "Ratatouille." They want to find why a film that received such glow-in-the-dark reviews failed to connect with a far larger audience. So that these possibly-promotion-related problems can then cleared up by the time "WALL-E" rolls into theaters during the Summer of 2008.
What do you folks think? Is there something that the Mouse's marketing department could have done differently with "Ratatouille" ? How can Disney improve the promotion that it does for Pixar's animated features?
Your thoughts?
$200 million for this movie is pretty good. If it didn't have the Disney/Pixar name and reputation behind it, it wouldn't have come close to that. It's not that the movie was bad, it was just disappointing.
I, like many fans, expect a certain something from a Pixar film....that expectation sells a bunch of tickets. In terms of entertainment value, Pixar set the bar pretty high with the Toy Story movies, Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo. The reputations of those films still draw people in to see the new releases. The problem is, with each successive film that does not compare to those "classics", fewer and fewer people will be willing to pay to see the next movie just because of the Pixar name. That, in my opinion, is why each Pixar release since Finding Nemo has earned less than the one before it.
The Incredibles, Cars and Ratatouille were all good (but not great) movies. None of them measured up to those earlier films and so each successive one lost some of the "automatic" Pixar market. I bet Wall-E loses even more (especially since it seems like a terrible premise to begin with). Not until Pixar puts out another movie that has the same level of humor, fun and especially cleverness that the earlier films had will more people be willing to see a movie just because of the Pixar name.
Interesting point, Ayefour.
I think the track record does make a big difference, but I think Ratatouille suffered not because it was a drop in quality, but because Cars was. Before Cars, I was willing to see any pixar film regardless of reviews. When Cars came out, it showed me that they could drop the ball and lost some trust from me.
I'll bet there were a decent number of people who saw cars and felt burned by it, and it made them skeptical about Ratatouille.
Personally, Nemo is one of my less favorite Pixar films, and I think Incredibles and Ratatouille are both way better and every bit as good as the other earlier pixar material.
I think people are coming at this article from the wrong side, in some cases. As someone else said, there are about 7 billion reasons why Disney did not want to buy a little boutiquey-niche company that churned out well-reviewed, poorly performing box office films.
You can spin the numbers either way, really ... Jim shows only the bad, while some people pull out ancillary numbers (like foreign box office or merchandise sales) to "prove" that films didn't underperform.
But the numbers are only valid when you compare apples to apples. You can't say that Nemo did x billion dollars worldwide and then criticize Rat because it "only" did 200 mil domestically. Worldwide vs. domestic box is not apples to apples. Likewise, you can't say that Rat is as good as other Pixar films because it did y million overseas in addition to its domestic box. All the other Pixar films were hits in overseas markets, too, and they all sold some level of merchandise, etc. Until someone pops a chart that shows the sum total of all revenue streams for all eight movies, you really can't do a fair comparison. What's going on here in both the articles and a lot of the posts is just spin.
The bottom line is, no matter what claims or justifications you make to the contrary, Rat did not do as well as the other Pixar films and they ARE on a downward trend in terms of domestic box office receipts (the only true apples to apples comparison I can make right now).
Look I hear ya all ... it's nice to make good quality films. It's nice to have the best reviewed film of the year and maybe even the Oscar for best animated film (although I'd submit that that and $4.95 will get you a latte at Starbucks).
But Disney bought Pixar mostly because they were a money making machine. You don't invest 7 billion in a company that makes "cute" movies that are "well reviewed."
And I gotta be honest ... at least from where I stand, I don't have any confidence that their next films are gonna break this trend. I'm a Pixar guy, though, so here's hoping I'm wrong.
Great observations, "Ayefour" and "Pickstar"...it reminds me of Woody Allen's career...and his self examination of this very point in his film “Stardust Memories”…I believe it was an alien from a UFO who spoke to him in a dream sequence…”we love your films…especially the earlier, funny ones”. It’s a very common thing for artists to want to change, expand and flex their creative mussels. It’s just part of the “Circle of (artistic) Life”. People change, companies change…some may love the new stuff…others may only want to see “the earlier funny stuff”! Cheers!
>>> But Disney bought Pixar mostly because they were a money making machine. You don't invest 7 billion in a company that makes "cute" movies that are "well reviewed." <<<
Actually, my understanding was Disney bought Pixar because:
a) it would have been disastrous if Pixar ended up as Disney's competitor when they were already up against DreamWorks Animation and other studios looking for the piece of the CGI movie pie.
b) Iger wanted to get Disney animation QUALITY back up where it's always been before the suits made all the movie making decisions, and what company better to merge with than Pixar?
Yes, Pixar is a money making machine. But they are a money making machine because, as they keep saying over and over again, they pay a lot of attention to story. They follow that whole "Quality is the Best Business Plan" mantra. And thankfully, it doesn't sound like Pixar is going to bend over backwards and force themselves to be like DreamWorks Animation and make pop culture joke-laced movies just because they "only" made $200 million domestically this time around. They are not going to kill the golden goose just to please the short-term investors. I'd expect a "Pixar guy" to appreciate that.
Look, to be honest I didn't think Ratatouille was their best either. Saw it twice, and I do think they are lucky to have made $200 million all things considered. But I appreciate that Pixar, like Walt Disney, knows that even if there's always the potential to fail, that shouldn't stop you from always trying to be great.
Oh, and check out these wise words from an article I read from a while back regarding Disney when Eisner was running things:
"...All these Disney execs saw was an immediate cost savings for the corporation if they shut down the Secret Lab. Which is why they went for it. Walking briskly away from that $100 million-plus investment in hardware and talent. All just to save a few bucks.
It's that exact quality that I personally find so exasperating about the Walt Disney Company's current management team. No one thinks ahead anymore. These days, everyone in the executive suite is concentrating on how they can look good right now. What they can do today that will guarantee that they still have a job tomorrow. It's all short term thinking. With little thought as to what the long term ramifications of today's actions might be..."
Who wrote these words, alluding that Disney should be focusing on quality and on the long term, instead of the short term quick buck? Your beloved Jim Hill: http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2003/01/15/224.aspx
What happened to that mentality, Jim?
Why was Pixar purchased?
Here is what should happen ....
A few guys from Disney transfer up to Pixar, a few Pixar guys transfer down to Disney ... people get cross trained. Talent rubs off .... BOTH Disney Animation and Pixar benefit.
That’s usually what happens when a company merges.
Here is the thing ... Pixar continues to make high end ... even more high end concept stuff ... (call it "boutique" if you will)... and Disney Animation continues to make the mass market kids stuff that is always has ... but perhaps with a renewed eye for quality and discernment that wasn’t there before.
Toy Story was literally the first computer animated movie. Monsters Inc was practically the third ever made. It's safe to say that Nemo is the undisputed king of CGI animated films thus far not only because of the previous Pixar films, but because of Shrek as well.... because during these first few years it was all cutting edge and new and people wanted more .... it was ALL "boutique".
What needs to stop is this CGI vs. 2D rivalry. Yes ... we understand that the old timers feel burned when Pixar became the golden child during the Toy Story - Nemo years. The fact of the matter is that if Enchanted isn't a good "fairy tale movie" and the animated parts come off more like a gimmick than genuine Disney 2D animation... it really won't much matter ... people may not come out for WALL-E .... and if WALL-E doesn't do well ... then maybe no-one will come out for The Princess and the Frog.
The average movie goer doesn't separate these movies .... they are NOT separate genres as the creators seem to think they are. The sooner they stop playing this game the better ... for them and for us.
Look at Beowulf .... it's clearly not a kids movie.... it looks awful ... but in the end it may do well because there is a market for more adult oriented animated content.
If WALL-E doesn't float your boat ... then Disney has in the works something that will... THAT is how an entertainment bisiness works. Personally ... I think the ONLY CGI movie that "Disney Animation" did of any significance was Dinosaur ... and I for one liked it better than I liked Nemo.
What I find interesting is the fact that apparently both Disney and Pixar thought a movie about a rat in a kitchen would sell. To anyone.
It is a beautiful piece of work, but most people I've talked to about the film back off because of the main character's species and the location of the story.
Granted, it has made the $200 MM mark and that is a great accomplishment, but I think it is time that folks take a step back, get a grip and realize that not everything is going to be a top 10 draw and win all the awards.
Disney has been around long enough to know that there are no guarantees about anything in this business. They spent the $$$ to buy Pixar -- and presumably they knew what they were getting when they wrote the check. They can cry all they want about box office results, but if the public isn't interested in the product, there won't be a market.
Pixar has had an amazing run but it is illogical to assume that every piece of work they put out will hit the top 10. And, if I recall correctly, Ratatouille was not designed to be a "Disney" film in the first place. They can hardly cry foul because Disney didn't know how to market it.
Woah woah woah, that studio insider's comments on WALL-E was way too harsh!!! I'm very much looking forward to WALL-E. I am actually happy that Pixar is promoting the film instead of Disney. If it was Disney, they would have bastardize the marketing campaign.
Now the reason why RATATOUILLE didn't do well as most hoped was simply because it came out during a busy week and part of the marketing campaign sucked.
It should have came out the week EVAN ALMIGHTY came out, which wouldn't have posed a threat because the movie flopped in the box office. RATATOUILLE came out the same week LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD came, and a week before TRANSFORMERS was released. Because it was in theatres during those weeks, it faced a lot of competition. HARRY POTTER didn't help either.
As for the marketing, yeah, releasing a 9 minute clip and having preview showings (complete with the WALL-E teaser and "Lifted") were good ideas, but the TV ads and movie posters could have been better. They marketed the movie as a comedy about a cute rat, without aknowledgement of the human characters and enough information about Remy's goals. Also, I notice that there's too much merchandise of Emile when he didn't play a major role in the film. In a way, some of the kiddy merchandise seems odd (um, remote-controlled Remy?).
BOTTOM LINE: The RATATOUILLE campaign could have been better if they didn't market the movie as a slapstick-filled comedy. The film itself was more mature than that.
Mickey, Jim's not Al Lutz. Al quotes disgruntled Imagineers verbatim. Jim paraphrases disgruntled animators. Difference.
**ducks**
StorytellerSJK said:
"I have got it out of my system and I can now go back to doing what I should have done all along: ignoring the ungrateful and self righteous morons who are posting on this site. After all that certainly seems to be what Jim is doing. If its good enough for him... Thanks for the laughs. I now return to reading the comments of those who have intelligent points to add to a discussion."
Name calling now? Wow, your intelligence astounds me.
"I'm 7 BILLION percent sure, Mr. Iger wasn't looking to buy a "little Boutique-y" film making company..."
Yeah, but better a nice little Boutique than a Wal-mart. Remember, people can spot quality.
The marketing isn't to blame, the release date is. If its release date had been bumped up a week opposite Evan Almighty, it might have done better. Disney played it safe assuming that Evan Almighty would be a hit when it ended up being a bomb. Playing it safe is what hurt Ratatouille's BO. It opened in one of the most competitive extended weekends all summer opposite Live Free or Die Hard and Transformers and did great against them, but it could have done better.
Jim, I expect you to not speak of your sources again, as now there is a mouse hunt going on to find out who is telling you this because this is less than 1% of what is actually going on and SOMEONE will be fired.
i like pixar movies but i had no desire to see Cars (still haven't) and Rat just does nothing for me and won't go see it. Right up until last year, i was a devoted fan. but seriously, movie fans grow up, too. maybe the films should try it, too. the audience doesn't stay the same. I do have hopes for Wall*E, though. Cars and Rat just seemed like a step down from the incredibles content-wise. i hate nascar and i hate rats. it seems like these guys probably shoulda done their research a bit better.
Okay Jim. I think I am getting the picture. Run negative articles to get people all fired up and reading your site. A page taken right from Lutz. Nothing like flipping the bird in traffic to get a reaction.
Jeez.