Toon Tuesday : How Pixar fixed “Finding Nemo”

Jim Hill

17 years ago

It’s the story that won’t go away. How back in 2001, Michael Eisner reportedly told Disney’s board of directors that he’d be postponing any further contract talks with Pixar Animation Studios.

“And why would the then-Chairman & CEO of the Walt Disney Company do that?,” you ask. Because Eisner had just come back from a work-in-progress screening of “Finding Nemo.” And he supposedly told the board that this Andrew Stanton movie was the weakest thing that Pixar had produced to date. Which is why Michael wanted to wait ’til this fish film flopped before he then re-opened negotiations with that Emeryville-based animation studio.

You see, Eisner believed that it would be far easier for Disney’s attorneys to get Steve Jobs to agree to much more favorable terms if Pixar were coming off of its first “reality check.” Which is why he wanted to put off any talk of an extension of their co-production deal for a year or so.

But then when “Finding Nemo” opened in theaters nationwide on May 30, 2003, it became this huge critical & financial success. For a time, that Academy Award-winning film was even the top grossing animated feature of all time … At least until “Shrek 2” came along and knocked off that clownfish’s crown.

And as for Eisner … Many people (Roy Disney included) used Michael’s “Finding Nemo” box office prediction as an indication of how truly out-of-touch Disney’s Big Cheese had become. Which helped speed Eisner’s fall from power.

But here’s the thing: Michael Eisner wasn’t actually wrong about “Finding Nemo.” At least not when it comes to the shape that this Pixar production was in back in the Fall of 2001.

Back then, this Andrew Stanton film was in awful shape. It was saddled with at least one too many plotlines, one lead character that had a rather unappealing secret as well as another character who was desperately in need of a new voice.

As for “Nemo” ‘s extraneous plotline … Early on, Stanton wanted to keep moviegoers in the dark for long as possible about why Marlin was so over-protective, why Nemo had this damaged fin. Which is why he initially tried to handle this father & son’s tragic backstory through a series of flashbacks.

As Andrew explained on the visual commentary track of the “Finding Nemo” DVD:

Andrew Stanton with the Oscar that “Finding Nemo” won
for Best Animated Feature. Copyright 2004 Academy
of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences and ABC, Inc.
All Rights Reserved

Earlier (on), we had flashbacks. And we were going to dole them out, this whole backstory. We were just going to tell a little bit at a time … And you’d get these little windows of the past … And it was all leading up to this tragic event with the barracuda.

So why did Stanton eventually decide to discard this rather stylistic way of revealing of how exactly Coral died, how all of Nemo’s brothers & sisters got eaten?

Ultimately what made it fall apart was there was nothing big to reveal at the end. There was no “Ah Ha!” or surprise slant to it … By the time you were getting near the end of the movie, you kind of suspected what the tragedy was. (Which is why we decided to) remove the flashbacks and just (reveal the barracuda attack) right up front. Which is what almost every Film 101 book tells you to do.

Mind you, it took a couple of passes before Stanton finally came up with an opening for “Finding Nemo” that hit all of the right emotional beats. One that made Coral being eaten by the barracuda, the destruction of most of the eggs in the nest ” … powerful and yet not overly brutal.” After all, Andrew’s initial intent was to have the audience bond as quickly as possible with Marlin & Nemo.

Which is why — for a time anyway — “Finding Nemo” opened with the Father clownfish telling his son a bedtime story. And as Coral’s death, that was explained away in a single poignant exchange between Marlin & Nemo.

NEMO : And then the ocean took Mommy away?

MARLIN : (Rueful) That’s right. It did.

But in the end, the quickest way to get moviegoers to care about the two clownfish was to actually show the tragedy that bonded these characters together. Which is why “Finding Nemo” eventually opened with that barracuda attack on Marlin & Coral’s anemone.

FYI: That opening sequence was not in the work-in-progress film that Michael Eisner saw back in 2001. He saw a version of “Finding Nemo” which opened with Nemo’s first day of school. Where Marlin was already twitchy and over-protective, but you didn’t initially understand why the Father clownfish constantly hovered over his son. Which made that character rather difficult to like.

And Marlin wasn’t the only “Finding Nemo” character that audiences initially had trouble warming up to. Early on, Gill (i.e. The leader of the Tank Gang) was also a very unlikable character.

But that was only because Stanton wanted to reveal that this angelfish (Which the young clownfish had begun looking up to as a possible replacement for his father) was no angel. In a now-deleted scene from “Finding Nemo,” Nemo was supposed to discover that Gill’s colorful backstory (i.e. That Gill grew up in Bad Luck Bay and had four brothers — Marco, Polo, Lester & Linus — & one sister — Lulu) had actually been cribbed from a children’s storybook that P. Sherman made available to patients waiting in his lobby.

And while making Gill a liar was an interesting story choice for the leader of the Tank Gang, it also confused “Finding Nemo” ‘s test audiences. They couldn’t decide whether they should still root for this angelfish’s escape plan. More importantly, they wondered if they could really trust Gill to keep Nemo safe during his time in the dentist’s office.

Realizing that they unintentionally complicated the middle portion of their movie, Stanton and his story team eventually dropped the whole Gill-stole-his-backstory-from-a-children’s-book idea and just made this angelfish a determined loner who would do whatever he had to in order to escape from P. Sherman’s seawater aquarium. Which then brought an emotional clarity to Act 2 of “Finding Nemo.”

But — again — that’s not what Michael Eisner saw. He saw a version of “Finding Nemo” where Gill was this charismatic but delusional character. Where Nemo didn’t know who to trust while he was stuck in that aquarium, waiting for his father to come rescue him.

Speaking of Marlin … One of the other reasons that Disney’s then-Chairman & CEO wasn’t all that enthusiastic about “Finding Nemo” was the actor that Andrew initially hired to provide the voice of the Father clownfish. William H. Macy‘s vocal performance in this role just lacked … something. Though this award-winning performer tried his damnest, he just couldn’t make Marlin a character that you cared about. Which is why Stanton was eventually forced to recast this role.

And as for the actor that Andrew eventually did hire to play the Father clownfish, the “Finding Nemo” director had this to say about that performer:

Albert Brooks. He absolutely saved this picture. He is exactly what I needed this father character to be. You needed someone who was neurotic, over-protective but still appealing throughout. And that is one of Albert’s gifts. That he can sort of play both. Usually it’s such an off-putting thing. But he just makes it so winning.

(L to R) Ellen Degeneres, Alexander Gould and Albert Brooks at
the premiere of “Finding Nemo.” Photo by Dan Steinberg.
Copyright 2003 Disney / Pixar. All Rights Reserved

But — again — the version of “Finding Nemo” that Michael Eisner saw didn’t have Albert Brooks performing the voice of Marlin. But rather William H. Macy. Who’s a very talented man but not the right guy if you’re looking for the proper performer to voice an over-protective clownfish.

You getting where I’m going yet? That the version of “Finding Nemo” that Michael Eisner saw back in 2001 was pretty bad. Which is why the then-Chairman & CEO of the Walt Disney Company was right to feel the way that he did. Michael genuinely believed that he was looking at Pixar’s first flop. Which is why Eisner felt justified in telling Disney’s board of directors what he told them.

But Pixar Animation Studios … They had the time (More importantly, the talent in-house) to make all of the changes necessary to turn “Finding Nemo” into a hit. Which is why that Andrew Stanton film was such a huge success when it finally rolled into theaters in May of 2003.

“So why bring this up now?,” you query … Well, “WALL-E” has had several test screenings over the past six months. And while audiences have supposedly fallen in love with the movie’s title character, they have also reportedly raised some concerns about this new Andrew Stanton film. Which allegedly has been described ” … as the darkest motion picture that Pixar has ever produced.”

Among the issues that these test audiences have supposedly cited are “WALL-E” ‘s depressing settings (i.e. The first act of this film is set on Earth 700 years from now, where — thanks to humanity’s wasteful ways — our planet is now basically one big trash heap floating in space) as well as the picture’s depiction of people (i.e. In the future, mankind has grown so slothful that everyone weighs 500 pounds and has lost the ability to walk on their own. Which is why we all make use of these devices that look like floating barcaloungers).

So should we be at all concerned about the somewhat negative comments that have been coming out of these early “WALL-E” test screenings? Is this new Andrew Stanton film — which obviously pokes fun at today’s consumeristic society — really going to have a tough time finding an audience during summer blockbuster season?

I say … That we should probably pay attention to the hard lesson that Michael Eisner learned back in 2001. Which is that it’s really not wise to predict how a new Pixar film will do based on the work-in-progress version of that particular picture. Which is why you may want to discount any rumors that you may have heard about disappointing “WALL*E” test screenings.

Don’t worry. They’ve got time. They can fix it.