I found Cars tolerable, but honestly couldn't sit through Shark Tales. I saw Robots one time and didn't think much of it.
The movie was not sold out. I think this movie will likely have some legs and make its money in more than a weekend or two, at least that is my hope.
Nick
Since the 4th of July is a weekday this year and most people aren't getting a 3 or 4 day weekend, it's probably going to throw off the numbers a bit. Most people I know had to work yesterday and therefore didn't get around to taking the kids to the theater.
Excellent, excellent, excellent. Maybe the best thing Pixar has done, and they've done some incredible stuff.
I love that the movie's central message-- that you don't have to settle for mediocrity, and that the will to create is something to be admired and nurtured rather than shunned and repressed-- might as well be a rejoinder to all the CG movies that pander to a 14 year old boy's sense of humor, with their endless pop culture references and tired, hackneyed gags.
For my money Pixar are the only artists in the field. You see their movies and you see the love of character animation, of the specific qualities of light, of specific locations, of what rain on cobblestone at dusk looks like. Pixar movies positively glow with care and attention to detail, and a genuine delight with the details of the world.
Nobody else making CG "kids movies" can hold a candle to what Pixar is doing. I was worried that they might get blunted by the ponderous corporate maneuvering of Disney, but the opposite seems to be happening-- John Lasseter has been made the creative head of the animation division, they fired the woman who was responsible for those horrible direct to DVD "sequels", and Lasseter says that Disney will begin releasing theatrical animated shorts again, as a way of bringing up new talent.
Lasseter and Pixar are going to usher in a new golden age for Disney animation.
I have to say, though, that the short before the film was a little over the top for an audience mostly filled with people smaller than this high, er, I mean youngsters. They giggled at the man's survival up to the end... at which point one pointedly asked if he was alive.
J I was worried that they might get blunted by the ponderous corporate maneuvering of Disney, but the opposite seems to be happening-- John Lasseter has been made the creative head of the animation division, they fired the woman who was responsible for those horrible direct to DVD "sequels", and Lasseter says that Disney will begin releasing theatrical animated shorts again, as a way of bringing up new talent.
The Disney sequels?
I think that's a bad business decision to tell you the truth. Those direct-to-video titles oftentimes generated over a hundred million dollars in sales per title. It's worthwhile to keep them because I don't think they dilute the Disney brand quality at all. In my mind they seem to very clearly exist outside the canon. So it seems irrational to me to give up those profits by eliminating a certain category of titles that posed no threat to the strength of brand.
I think that's a bad business decision to tell you the truth. Those direct-to-video titles oftentimes generated over a hundred million dollars in sales per title. It's worthwhile to keep them because I don't think they dilute the Disney brand quality at all. In my mind they seem to very clearly exist outside the canon. So it seems irrational to me to give up those profits by eliminating a certain category of titles that posed no threat to the strength of brand.
I disagree-- no matter how they're marketed, the sequels very clearly say "we're willing to cash in on our back catalogue with little concern for quality-- Disney is a money making machine first and a place for quality animation second."
Now, it's a given that worrying about Disney "cashing in " at this point is a little like worrying that Enron might succumb to greed, but I'm really struck by the philosophical shift dropping the sequels represents (particularly because it means leaving money on the table), and I can only assume it's because of the Pixar/Lasseter/Jobs ethos being adopted as the new Disney animation ethos, which can only be to the good.
In a way, it's like Apple vs. the rest of the computer industry-- a stubborn insistence on quality even when it doesn't appear to be an entirely rational business decision, and products that seem to be driven by genuine excitement about what's possible.
I think that's a bad business decision to tell you the truth. Those direct-to-video titles oftentimes generated over a hundred million dollars in sales per title. It's worthwhile to keep them because I don't think they dilute the Disney brand quality at all. In my mind they seem to very clearly exist outside the canon. So it seems irrational to me to give up those profits by eliminating a certain category of titles that posed no threat to the strength of brand.
I agree with Shawn in this instance. That is some serious money to leave on the table and adults could tell that the videos were of a different artistic quality while the kids themselves simply didn't care and demanded more of the same brand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
I disagree-- no matter how they're marketed, the sequels very clearly say "we're willing to cash in on our back catalogue with little concern for quality-- Disney is a money making machine first and a place for quality animation second."
Now, it's a given that worrying about Disney "cashing in " at this point is a little like worrying that Enron might succumb to greed, but I'm really struck by the philosophical shift dropping the sequels represents (particularly because it means leaving money on the table), and I can only assume it's because of the Pixar/Lasseter/Jobs ethos being adopted as the new Disney animation ethos, which can only be to the good.
In a way, it's like Apple vs. the rest of the computer industry-- a stubborn insistence on quality even when it doesn't appear to be an entirely rational business decision, and products that seem to be driven by genuine excitement about what's possible.
So you think Pixar/Lasseter/Jobs haven't cashed in off the Pixar pictures? Funny, I don't recall pondering the artistic merit of the toys in my children's Happy Meals. I never thought once to myself, gee self, this has diluted the quality of the brand and so I'll never enjoy that movie again.
I mean every Pixar trailer reminds you of every previous success. How is that allowing future films to stand on their own artistic merit?
I'm not saying that management of expectations is not part of this game with regard to commercialism and artistry and yes Jobs and company have pulled off the balancing of the two almost perfectly. That said, Disney here had managed expectations appropriately for these releases. They were straight to DVD video releases and had expectations in line with such fare.
But seriously, anything Disney or Pixar does is going to end up in toys, in amusement parks, etc. There has to be some give and take.
Nintendo is often considered to be the "Apple" of the current video console makers and they do innovate as well. However you can bet your ass that every new console is going to have a Mario, Wario, etc type game. It is innovation within a theme.
Pixar also keeps their own sub-branding within the wonderful Disney empire. If Jobs and company had simply declared that no Pixar pictures would engage in straight to DVD releases or whatever that is fine as well. It would make Pixar the premium animation brand within the Disney brand.
There's a pretty big difference between marketing tie-ins like toys and releasing crappy direct to video "sequels" that purport to be an extension of the original.
Comparing Disney raiding its own back catalogue to reoccurring characters in video games doesn't make any sense to me.
And I don't think that just figuring that "the parents understand the financial imperatives that create such dross and the kids can't tell the difference" is defensible.
Crap is crap, and a poorly animated, hastily scripted knock-off of your own stuff means you have no regard for your own product.
Pixar has never done this, because they have some pride about what they are doing. They made Toy Story 2, and they made sure it was really good. Disney, in the past, would never have done this for the same reason-- the idea of debasing an iconic American classic like Bambi with some half-assed direct to video cash-in would have made Walt's head explode.
I realize that in the modern world the idea that a corporation might have actual pride in what they do, beyond figuring out how to maximize the profits, must sound naive, but, ironically, the very company that accounts for the existence of this discussion board is a case in point.
Jobs doesn't do crap because he doesn't like crap. It's as simple as that.
Neither does John Lasseter, and hopefully his attitude will prevail.
Before I go any further... I want to make it very clear that even if Steve Jobs technically OWNED Pixar, John Lasseter and Ed Catmull are the real heart and soul of Pixar, more John than Ed when it comes to Animation but you get the point. Jobs cashed in at every available opportunity though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ
The Disney sequels?
I think that's a bad business decision to tell you the truth. Those direct-to-video titles oftentimes generated over a hundred million dollars in sales per title. It's worthwhile to keep them because I don't think they dilute the Disney brand quality at all. In my mind they seem to very clearly exist outside the canon. So it seems irrational to me to give up those profits by eliminating a certain category of titles that posed no threat to the strength of brand.
How can they dilute the Disney brand quality when there's nothing left to dilute? Pixar is simply the best thing that ever happened to Disney since Walt himself. It may not be the best business decision but no one's kid needs to be exposed to the Lion King 1 1/2 when they can go out and get Cars or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
I agree with Shawn in this instance. That is some serious money to leave on the table and adults could tell that the videos were of a different artistic quality while the kids themselves simply didn't care and demanded more of the same brand.
So you think Jobs didn't cash in [Yes I edited it, oh and he did cash in -Sebastian] off the Pixar pictures? Funny, I don't recall pondering the artistic merit of the toys in my children's Happy Meals. I never thought once to myself, gee self, this has diluted the quality of the brand and so I'll never enjoy that movie again.
I mean every Pixar trailer reminds you of every previous success. How is that allowing future films to stand on their own artistic merit?
I'm not saying that management of expectations is not part of this game with regard to commercialism and artistry and yes Jobs and company have pulled off the balancing of the two almost perfectly. That said, Disney here had managed expectations appropriately for these releases. They were straight to DVD video releases and had expectations in line with such fare.
But seriously, anything Disney or Pixar does is going to end up in toys, in amusement parks, etc. There has to be some give and take.
Nintendo is often considered to be the "Apple" of the current video console makers and they do innovate as well. However you can bet your ass that every new console is going to have a Mario, Wario, etc type game. It is innovation within a theme.
Pixar also keeps their own sub-branding within the wonderful Disney empire. If Jobs and company had simply declared that no Pixar pictures would engage in straight to DVD releases or whatever that is fine as well. It would make Pixar the premium animation brand within the Disney brand.
Nick
Pixar is a brand of quality that is now owned by Disney, keeping those horrible straight to DVD releases would dilute the only brand left to dilute at Disney: Pixar. Personally I'm glad they're dead.
I cant but help feeling that Pixar has peaked, Cars and Incredibles were not actually that good, nowhere near as great as monsters Inc and Nemo, even the toy story'. I have yet to see ratatouille, and from the previews, it looks like possibly a return to form, but IMO pixars biggest problem is that there are so many other studio's putting out second rate CGI stuff which dilutes the whole artistic genre, which no doubt about it - Pixar are leagues above the rest.
btw, when does ratatouille come out in the UK??
[edit] and my point was - that it was probably the single best time ever for steve to sell Pixar
Shrek ruined the genre. Crap writing, cliches, awful story morals (pretty people shouldn't get together with ugly people. So girls, throw some acid on your face if you like that chubby not-so-great looking guy.)
The Pixar stuff is leaps and bounds above anything Dreamworks puts out in kid's CGI theater. I'm taking my 2.5 year old to see it this Friday.
Haven't seen Ratatouille yet. But the remarks here make me curious.
Did see a new Japanese Anime titled "Paprika" and was the most impressive feat of CGI and hand drawn animation of this genre since "Swept Away". Highly recommend it.
Comments
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/
Note to Movie Studios... making a movie PG-13 will not make it earn more money when your target audience wants an R movie.
I would rather watch this instead...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDaKAQLexVE
Hopefully it will prevent that new Piece of Shit PG-13 Die Hard from being the #1 movie...
...Die Hard 4 is getting surprisingly good reviews.
If you haven't gone and seen it yet, you should. It is incredible animation, great pacing, very well written and enjoyable on a multitude of levels.
Go now.
Nick
Everyone who has seen it says it is incredible, and I'd expect no less from Brad Bird and Pixar.
The movie was not sold out. I think this movie will likely have some legs and make its money in more than a weekend or two, at least that is my hope.
Nick
WALL-E
Brad Bird and Pixar.
That sells it for me right there!
I found Cars tolerable, but honestly couldn't sit through Shark Tales. I saw Robots one time and didn't think much of it.
The movie was not sold out. I think this movie will likely have some legs and make its money in more than a weekend or two, at least that is my hope.
Nick
Since the 4th of July is a weekday this year and most people aren't getting a 3 or 4 day weekend, it's probably going to throw off the numbers a bit. Most people I know had to work yesterday and therefore didn't get around to taking the kids to the theater.
Excellent, excellent, excellent. Maybe the best thing Pixar has done, and they've done some incredible stuff.
I love that the movie's central message-- that you don't have to settle for mediocrity, and that the will to create is something to be admired and nurtured rather than shunned and repressed-- might as well be a rejoinder to all the CG movies that pander to a 14 year old boy's sense of humor, with their endless pop culture references and tired, hackneyed gags.
For my money Pixar are the only artists in the field. You see their movies and you see the love of character animation, of the specific qualities of light, of specific locations, of what rain on cobblestone at dusk looks like. Pixar movies positively glow with care and attention to detail, and a genuine delight with the details of the world.
Nobody else making CG "kids movies" can hold a candle to what Pixar is doing. I was worried that they might get blunted by the ponderous corporate maneuvering of Disney, but the opposite seems to be happening-- John Lasseter has been made the creative head of the animation division, they fired the woman who was responsible for those horrible direct to DVD "sequels", and Lasseter says that Disney will begin releasing theatrical animated shorts again, as a way of bringing up new talent.
Lasseter and Pixar are going to usher in a new golden age for Disney animation.
J I was worried that they might get blunted by the ponderous corporate maneuvering of Disney, but the opposite seems to be happening-- John Lasseter has been made the creative head of the animation division, they fired the woman who was responsible for those horrible direct to DVD "sequels", and Lasseter says that Disney will begin releasing theatrical animated shorts again, as a way of bringing up new talent.
The Disney sequels?
I think that's a bad business decision to tell you the truth. Those direct-to-video titles oftentimes generated over a hundred million dollars in sales per title. It's worthwhile to keep them because I don't think they dilute the Disney brand quality at all. In my mind they seem to very clearly exist outside the canon. So it seems irrational to me to give up those profits by eliminating a certain category of titles that posed no threat to the strength of brand.
The Disney sequels?
I think that's a bad business decision to tell you the truth. Those direct-to-video titles oftentimes generated over a hundred million dollars in sales per title. It's worthwhile to keep them because I don't think they dilute the Disney brand quality at all. In my mind they seem to very clearly exist outside the canon. So it seems irrational to me to give up those profits by eliminating a certain category of titles that posed no threat to the strength of brand.
I disagree-- no matter how they're marketed, the sequels very clearly say "we're willing to cash in on our back catalogue with little concern for quality-- Disney is a money making machine first and a place for quality animation second."
Now, it's a given that worrying about Disney "cashing in " at this point is a little like worrying that Enron might succumb to greed, but I'm really struck by the philosophical shift dropping the sequels represents (particularly because it means leaving money on the table), and I can only assume it's because of the Pixar/Lasseter/Jobs ethos being adopted as the new Disney animation ethos, which can only be to the good.
In a way, it's like Apple vs. the rest of the computer industry-- a stubborn insistence on quality even when it doesn't appear to be an entirely rational business decision, and products that seem to be driven by genuine excitement about what's possible.
The Disney sequels?
I think that's a bad business decision to tell you the truth. Those direct-to-video titles oftentimes generated over a hundred million dollars in sales per title. It's worthwhile to keep them because I don't think they dilute the Disney brand quality at all. In my mind they seem to very clearly exist outside the canon. So it seems irrational to me to give up those profits by eliminating a certain category of titles that posed no threat to the strength of brand.
I agree with Shawn in this instance. That is some serious money to leave on the table and adults could tell that the videos were of a different artistic quality while the kids themselves simply didn't care and demanded more of the same brand.
I disagree-- no matter how they're marketed, the sequels very clearly say "we're willing to cash in on our back catalogue with little concern for quality-- Disney is a money making machine first and a place for quality animation second."
Now, it's a given that worrying about Disney "cashing in " at this point is a little like worrying that Enron might succumb to greed, but I'm really struck by the philosophical shift dropping the sequels represents (particularly because it means leaving money on the table), and I can only assume it's because of the Pixar/Lasseter/Jobs ethos being adopted as the new Disney animation ethos, which can only be to the good.
In a way, it's like Apple vs. the rest of the computer industry-- a stubborn insistence on quality even when it doesn't appear to be an entirely rational business decision, and products that seem to be driven by genuine excitement about what's possible.
So you think Pixar/Lasseter/Jobs haven't cashed in off the Pixar pictures? Funny, I don't recall pondering the artistic merit of the toys in my children's Happy Meals. I never thought once to myself, gee self, this has diluted the quality of the brand and so I'll never enjoy that movie again.
I mean every Pixar trailer reminds you of every previous success. How is that allowing future films to stand on their own artistic merit?
I'm not saying that management of expectations is not part of this game with regard to commercialism and artistry and yes Jobs and company have pulled off the balancing of the two almost perfectly. That said, Disney here had managed expectations appropriately for these releases. They were straight to DVD video releases and had expectations in line with such fare.
But seriously, anything Disney or Pixar does is going to end up in toys, in amusement parks, etc. There has to be some give and take.
Nintendo is often considered to be the "Apple" of the current video console makers and they do innovate as well. However you can bet your ass that every new console is going to have a Mario, Wario, etc type game. It is innovation within a theme.
Pixar also keeps their own sub-branding within the wonderful Disney empire. If Jobs and company had simply declared that no Pixar pictures would engage in straight to DVD releases or whatever that is fine as well. It would make Pixar the premium animation brand within the Disney brand.
Nick
Comparing Disney raiding its own back catalogue to reoccurring characters in video games doesn't make any sense to me.
And I don't think that just figuring that "the parents understand the financial imperatives that create such dross and the kids can't tell the difference" is defensible.
Crap is crap, and a poorly animated, hastily scripted knock-off of your own stuff means you have no regard for your own product.
Pixar has never done this, because they have some pride about what they are doing. They made Toy Story 2, and they made sure it was really good. Disney, in the past, would never have done this for the same reason-- the idea of debasing an iconic American classic like Bambi with some half-assed direct to video cash-in would have made Walt's head explode.
I realize that in the modern world the idea that a corporation might have actual pride in what they do, beyond figuring out how to maximize the profits, must sound naive, but, ironically, the very company that accounts for the existence of this discussion board is a case in point.
Jobs doesn't do crap because he doesn't like crap. It's as simple as that.
Neither does John Lasseter, and hopefully his attitude will prevail.
The Disney sequels?
I think that's a bad business decision to tell you the truth. Those direct-to-video titles oftentimes generated over a hundred million dollars in sales per title. It's worthwhile to keep them because I don't think they dilute the Disney brand quality at all. In my mind they seem to very clearly exist outside the canon. So it seems irrational to me to give up those profits by eliminating a certain category of titles that posed no threat to the strength of brand.
How can they dilute the Disney brand quality when there's nothing left to dilute? Pixar is simply the best thing that ever happened to Disney since Walt himself. It may not be the best business decision but no one's kid needs to be exposed to the Lion King 1 1/2 when they can go out and get Cars or something.
I agree with Shawn in this instance. That is some serious money to leave on the table and adults could tell that the videos were of a different artistic quality while the kids themselves simply didn't care and demanded more of the same brand.
So you think Jobs didn't cash in [Yes I edited it, oh and he did cash in -Sebastian] off the Pixar pictures? Funny, I don't recall pondering the artistic merit of the toys in my children's Happy Meals. I never thought once to myself, gee self, this has diluted the quality of the brand and so I'll never enjoy that movie again.
I mean every Pixar trailer reminds you of every previous success. How is that allowing future films to stand on their own artistic merit?
I'm not saying that management of expectations is not part of this game with regard to commercialism and artistry and yes Jobs and company have pulled off the balancing of the two almost perfectly. That said, Disney here had managed expectations appropriately for these releases. They were straight to DVD video releases and had expectations in line with such fare.
But seriously, anything Disney or Pixar does is going to end up in toys, in amusement parks, etc. There has to be some give and take.
Nintendo is often considered to be the "Apple" of the current video console makers and they do innovate as well. However you can bet your ass that every new console is going to have a Mario, Wario, etc type game. It is innovation within a theme.
Pixar also keeps their own sub-branding within the wonderful Disney empire. If Jobs and company had simply declared that no Pixar pictures would engage in straight to DVD releases or whatever that is fine as well. It would make Pixar the premium animation brand within the Disney brand.
Nick
Pixar is a brand of quality that is now owned by Disney, keeping those horrible straight to DVD releases would dilute the only brand left to dilute at Disney: Pixar. Personally I'm glad they're dead.
Sebastian
btw, when does ratatouille come out in the UK??
[edit] and my point was - that it was probably the single best time ever for steve to sell Pixar
The Pixar stuff is leaps and bounds above anything Dreamworks puts out in kid's CGI theater. I'm taking my 2.5 year old to see it this Friday.
Did see a new Japanese Anime titled "Paprika" and was the most impressive feat of CGI and hand drawn animation of this genre since "Swept Away". Highly recommend it.
Poster:
Trailer