aw, come on, nick. i thought you were smarter than this...
[/B]
I assure you, I am.
Quote:
if by "experts" you mean "juggernaut of media blitzing" or "the microsoft of cartoon-dom", then yeah. otherwise...
Look we can piss and moan about quality vs. quantity but the point is that Microsoft has 50 BILLION+ in the bank. 2-3% of us love Apple enough to give them our cash, and while they are admired by more, admiration doesn't cash anything at the bank.
Jobs has shown this same tendency repeatedly. He cannot give the 5% that makes 50% more money.
Quote:
i said it before, and i'll say it again, shrek may have been funny and enjoyable to a point, but it just didn't have the heart and the uniqueness that mosters inc did during the same year. still shocked it won the oscar.
The point is that Disney can turn Pixar movies and characters into a franchise versus a one time shot. Shrek has a sequel coming and it will probably do well money-wise. But will kids want Shrek lunchboxes, Shrek t-shirts, Shrek toys, etc.
Disney cannot be beat in this regard. Pixar not only has to find a partner for distribution. They need to now find a partner that can feature them in their theme parks, on their network, have their trailer on their DVD releases, etc. Disney cannot be matched in that regard by anyone.
Quote:
ah, so you DO get it. but, recall, steve cares about marketshare, but he cares more about being different. making a name for yourself, not for who you are, or what you do/make, but WHAT YOU ARE. the man can school ANYone on brand making.
Steve does generate better noise to signal ratio than most other people in marketing. But I would hardly say he has a lock on it. Plus the big guys get so large with their core products, they can then afford to have their quirky "different" products as well. Not only that, but the effectiveness they take from marketing the large product usually allows them to make even MORE from the quirky product. Look at what Ford has done with Jaguar for example. All the soda companies own most of the various "quirky and different" brands of beverage as well. Beer companies have done the same sort of thing.
Pixar does one thing well. It is trying to do more, but the same insane desire that pushes them past all others on the one great thing limits them in all the other areas. It is the classic failing that Steve has demonstrated again and again. It's why Apple hasn't brough back the Power Computing Clone Label to do some cheap Mac's for example. (While still exclusively owning the company) It is Jobs blessing/curse.
Quote:
again, disney has had a monopoly on animation for so long that people forget anything else that wasn't from their house. but why do we remember the greats? lion king? snow white? not because of the publicity, but the idea and story. i guarantee you pocahantas was the beginning of the end for disney, where they threw behind it as much money as any other film for marketing and, clunk, clunk, poca-what now?
Every company has compartive strong and weak films. Pocahantas did $150 MILLION domestically and that was a weak Disney film. It did 350 MILLION worldwide. It also had a straight to video sequel that was, from a quality standpoint, absolute crap, but it was easy money in the bank.
Quote:
sorry, nick, the best i will grant you is that it is a win/lose. maybe they won't have the money share or marketing and lunchboxes and such, but i think they'll earn as much if not more respect within the industry (and outside it too) without feeling like they are compromising anything to do it.
Business is all about compromise. Walt understood this very well when allowing many of the attractions in Disneyland to be sponsored for example. In the end, no matter how artistic something is, cash talks and bullshit walks. Everyone has up and down times and Disney marketing would allow the inevitable down Pixar movies to only do $100+ million and keep the stock up until the next real blockbuster. Instead Pixar will likely enjoy the same stock rollercoaster Apple has enjoyed.
No... I'm sure he meant the recent barrage of DVD sequels like "Stitch" (Lilo and Stitch 2), Jungle Book 2, Hunchback 2, Belle's Beauty and the Beast Christmas, all of the Lion King spin-offs, "enhanced" re-releases, etc.
all those "straight to video" titles make tons of money.
disney's one weak area in home video is lack of franchise, no spongebob, no dora, no blues clues, etc. hence the sequel madness. now that stitch is rolling they may start to do things different.
all those "straight to video" titles make tons of money.
disney's one weak area in home video is lack of franchise, no spongebob, no dora, no blues clues, etc. hence the sequel madness. now that stitch is rolling they may start to do things different.
i guess it's what you want to let you sleep at night. lately, maybe i've just gotten dazzled by the "zen of steve." after i read "the second coming of steve jobs," and started really looking at the man, how he handles suppliers, competitors, the space, people he works with, and what they all do together, i honestly think the man could care less about the dollars. mind you, that's probably easy to say when he's a billionaire, but still...
while everyone thinks he's getting more IMMATURE, it's actually been the opposite for him. in the beginning, he knew he was right, BUT he needed EVERYONE ELSE to also see he was right to validate his belief. and the only way anyone told him he could calculate that validation was in dollars and cents. but now, he does what he feels is right, and EVERYONE ELSE BE DAMNED. of course, when you take an attitude like that, be prepared to suffer bruises along the way when you are wrong (see: cube, BOTH times).
i guess i am just envious of how he could stick to his guns and values despite everything, and it's what has brought him back to the top, but not the top of the highest mountain, just the mountain he cares about. and i honestly think that steve doesn't want to win the oscar for best animated movie (though i'm sure he wouldn't turn it down), he wants the oscar for BEST MOVIE PERIOD. he wants, not validation for the pixar team's efforts, he wants to change the paradigm that movies and animation are immiscible, and the recognition of that award is what changes people's perceptions about things. but sometimes you just have to keep kicking at the door until it breaks down. return of the king is getting close to that with gollum, and steve just wants to know that he changed that river's course and to open people's perception of reality.
or maybe i'm just reading too much into him and he's trying to make a buck. but where's the drama in that?
also, i wouldn't evaluate "the incredibles" just off that teaser. i mean, it's a teaser, not a trailer. wasn't the first nemo trailer just a flythru of the ocean floor and coral? and then another with nemo and dora talking and the lantern fish? those two teasers by themselves just were not indicative of the whole movie.
but i'm not all that intrigued by the "boundin'" teaser, if that makes you feel any better.
also, i wouldn't evaluate "the incredibles" just off that teaser. i mean, it's a teaser, not a trailer. wasn't the first nemo trailer just a flythru of the ocean floor and coral? and then another with nemo and dora talking and the lantern fish? those two teasers by themselves just were not indicative of the whole movie.
but i'm not all that intrigued by the "boundin'" teaser, if that makes you feel any better.
The Incredibles teaser featured music from score to On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is a pretty sure indicator that Pixar knows how to make movies that rock.
Gah. Las Vegas sideshow characters take over the 'A Bug's Life' set. I was not impressed.
i agree. and i think i know why... it's the "narrator/soundtrack". some of the best pixar shorts rely on old fashioned physical expression and comedy a la silent film making. even "geri's game," which wasn't exactly silent, but everything was captured without an unce of dialog to capture the mood.
my point was pixar's movies have stylized look, "the incredibles" isn't going to look like a pixar product. it's going to look more traditional, brad bird is not a pixar insider, i worry that it's going to put people that have preconceived notions off. plus it looks like it's geared toward an older audience.
otherwise, i think pixar has been a boon to animation. it set the bar higher than ever.
SKMDC, you're going to regret that prediction (won't be a blockbuster) in a few months. Just like Moogs (was it him?) and his infamous Finding Nemo prediction.
SKMDC, you're going to regret that prediction (won't be a blockbuster) in a few months. Just like Moogs (was it him?) and his infamous Finding Nemo prediction.
i don't recall myself making a prediction. i said it looks different and it's done by an outsider, and it looked like it was aimed at an older audience.
earlier in the thread i said i thought it wouldn't do nemo numbers.
i think of the term blockbuster to be $200 mil. there were movies out this year that did $100 mil and lost money.
whoever predicted nemo's fate said it looked crappy and was doomed, i didn't say that about "the incredibles"
I just hope its obvious that Pixar won't be a part of Toy Story 3. i have a feeling that the stupid people of this country won't know any better, and it'll suck for Pixar. ugh i HATE disney. they just need to go bankrupt (now that pixar's out of the equation.)
the next pixar release "The Incredibles" doesn't look very "pixarish" and doesn't look to be a blockbuster, and although i think it looks funny, probably won't do nemo numbers. in fact i think the may be giving them something just to fill the commitment.
Pixar films are the safest money-making bets in the industry. This movie is more than likely to exceed 200 million at the box office, meeting and exceeding your criteria for a blockbuster. Sure it may not do nemo numbers, but it's safe to say it will do very well. Blockbuster-well.
Pixar films are the safest money-making bets in the industry. This movie is more than likely to exceed 200 million at the box office, meeting and exceeding your criteria for a blockbuster. Sure it may not do nemo numbers, but it's safe to say it will do very well. Blockbuster-well.
Pixar films were a safe bet with Disney behind them. I don't think that is so true now with not only not Disney behind them, but possibly even competing against them.
There were tons of films that wouldn't even be scheduled against Pixar releases because of the marketing that would drown out their release. We don't know if that will be true now.
hmmm. cnnmoney just reminded me something we have talked about in the past, but dismissed because the shadow of disney always loomed... what about a pixar/apple merger? pixar's stock would likely go down, but it would be interesting to guage how much credibility having the pixar name under their roof would give apple as a company.
i'm not saying it's a good or bad idea... i'm just saying...
edit: sorry, i first said pixar/disney merger... brain running on half-empty these days.
Pixar films are the safest money-making bets in the industry. This movie is more than likely to exceed 200 million at the box office, meeting and exceeding your criteria for a blockbuster. Sure it may not do nemo numbers, but it's safe to say it will do very well. Blockbuster-well.
shawn, i don't mean to be belligerent and i don't want it to sound like i'm bashing a movie i've never seen, but if disney thought it was going to be a 200 million dollar movie it would be coming out in the summer, not november.
Pixar films were a safe bet with Disney behind them. I don't think that is so true now with not only not Disney behind them, but possibly even competing against them.
There were tons of films that wouldn't even be scheduled against Pixar releases because of the marketing that would drown out their release. We don't know if that will be true now.
A Pixar/Apple merger makes no sense. Two completely different companies. Two completely different work environments. Two completely different processes. I don't know what either would add to the other in any substantial way.
What Pixar needs, post Disney, is a distributor. Apple's entire presence in film marketing and distribution is... the QuickTime Previews page. Not good enough. Someone like the WB or Fox or a similar large film publisher is what Pixar is looking for.
If Pixar needs a sweet deal on 1,100 Xserves, they can probably get one.
Comments
Originally posted by rok
aw, come on, nick. i thought you were smarter than this...
[/B]
I assure you, I am.
if by "experts" you mean "juggernaut of media blitzing" or "the microsoft of cartoon-dom", then yeah. otherwise...
Look we can piss and moan about quality vs. quantity but the point is that Microsoft has 50 BILLION+ in the bank. 2-3% of us love Apple enough to give them our cash, and while they are admired by more, admiration doesn't cash anything at the bank.
Jobs has shown this same tendency repeatedly. He cannot give the 5% that makes 50% more money.
i said it before, and i'll say it again, shrek may have been funny and enjoyable to a point, but it just didn't have the heart and the uniqueness that mosters inc did during the same year. still shocked it won the oscar.
The point is that Disney can turn Pixar movies and characters into a franchise versus a one time shot. Shrek has a sequel coming and it will probably do well money-wise. But will kids want Shrek lunchboxes, Shrek t-shirts, Shrek toys, etc.
Disney cannot be beat in this regard. Pixar not only has to find a partner for distribution. They need to now find a partner that can feature them in their theme parks, on their network, have their trailer on their DVD releases, etc. Disney cannot be matched in that regard by anyone.
ah, so you DO get it. but, recall, steve cares about marketshare, but he cares more about being different. making a name for yourself, not for who you are, or what you do/make, but WHAT YOU ARE. the man can school ANYone on brand making.
Steve does generate better noise to signal ratio than most other people in marketing. But I would hardly say he has a lock on it. Plus the big guys get so large with their core products, they can then afford to have their quirky "different" products as well. Not only that, but the effectiveness they take from marketing the large product usually allows them to make even MORE from the quirky product. Look at what Ford has done with Jaguar for example. All the soda companies own most of the various "quirky and different" brands of beverage as well. Beer companies have done the same sort of thing.
Pixar does one thing well. It is trying to do more, but the same insane desire that pushes them past all others on the one great thing limits them in all the other areas. It is the classic failing that Steve has demonstrated again and again. It's why Apple hasn't brough back the Power Computing Clone Label to do some cheap Mac's for example. (While still exclusively owning the company) It is Jobs blessing/curse.
again, disney has had a monopoly on animation for so long that people forget anything else that wasn't from their house. but why do we remember the greats? lion king? snow white? not because of the publicity, but the idea and story. i guarantee you pocahantas was the beginning of the end for disney, where they threw behind it as much money as any other film for marketing and, clunk, clunk, poca-what now?
Every company has compartive strong and weak films. Pocahantas did $150 MILLION domestically and that was a weak Disney film. It did 350 MILLION worldwide. It also had a straight to video sequel that was, from a quality standpoint, absolute crap, but it was easy money in the bank.
sorry, nick, the best i will grant you is that it is a win/lose. maybe they won't have the money share or marketing and lunchboxes and such, but i think they'll earn as much if not more respect within the industry (and outside it too) without feeling like they are compromising anything to do it.
Business is all about compromise. Walt understood this very well when allowing many of the attractions in Disneyland to be sponsored for example. In the end, no matter how artistic something is, cash talks and bullshit walks. Everyone has up and down times and Disney marketing would allow the inevitable down Pixar movies to only do $100+ million and keep the stock up until the next real blockbuster. Instead Pixar will likely enjoy the same stock rollercoaster Apple has enjoyed.
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
No... I'm sure he meant the recent barrage of DVD sequels like "Stitch" (Lilo and Stitch 2), Jungle Book 2, Hunchback 2, Belle's Beauty and the Beast Christmas, all of the Lion King spin-offs, "enhanced" re-releases, etc.
all those "straight to video" titles make tons of money.
disney's one weak area in home video is lack of franchise, no spongebob, no dora, no blues clues, etc. hence the sequel madness. now that stitch is rolling they may start to do things different.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
all those "straight to video" titles make tons of money.
Exactly that is what the smilie was for.
Likewise even those Mary Kate and Ashley movies were pure crap, they built the brand that has made them billions.
Nick
Which is why one of the other nominated films this year, The Triplets of Belleville, looks very interesting.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
all those "straight to video" titles make tons of money.
disney's one weak area in home video is lack of franchise, no spongebob, no dora, no blues clues, etc. hence the sequel madness. now that stitch is rolling they may start to do things different.
i guess it's what you want to let you sleep at night. lately, maybe i've just gotten dazzled by the "zen of steve." after i read "the second coming of steve jobs," and started really looking at the man, how he handles suppliers, competitors, the space, people he works with, and what they all do together, i honestly think the man could care less about the dollars. mind you, that's probably easy to say when he's a billionaire, but still...
while everyone thinks he's getting more IMMATURE, it's actually been the opposite for him. in the beginning, he knew he was right, BUT he needed EVERYONE ELSE to also see he was right to validate his belief. and the only way anyone told him he could calculate that validation was in dollars and cents. but now, he does what he feels is right, and EVERYONE ELSE BE DAMNED. of course, when you take an attitude like that, be prepared to suffer bruises along the way when you are wrong (see: cube, BOTH times).
i guess i am just envious of how he could stick to his guns and values despite everything, and it's what has brought him back to the top, but not the top of the highest mountain, just the mountain he cares about. and i honestly think that steve doesn't want to win the oscar for best animated movie (though i'm sure he wouldn't turn it down), he wants the oscar for BEST MOVIE PERIOD. he wants, not validation for the pixar team's efforts, he wants to change the paradigm that movies and animation are immiscible, and the recognition of that award is what changes people's perceptions about things. but sometimes you just have to keep kicking at the door until it breaks down. return of the king is getting close to that with gollum, and steve just wants to know that he changed that river's course and to open people's perception of reality.
or maybe i'm just reading too much into him and he's trying to make a buck. but where's the drama in that?
p.s. i knew you had it in you, trumpt.
but i'm not all that intrigued by the "boundin'" teaser, if that makes you feel any better.
Originally posted by rok
but i'm not all that intrigued by the "boundin'" teaser, if that makes you feel any better.
Gah. Las Vegas sideshow characters take over the 'A Bug's Life' set. I was not impressed.
Originally posted by rok
also, i wouldn't evaluate "the incredibles" just off that teaser. i mean, it's a teaser, not a trailer. wasn't the first nemo trailer just a flythru of the ocean floor and coral? and then another with nemo and dora talking and the lantern fish? those two teasers by themselves just were not indicative of the whole movie.
but i'm not all that intrigued by the "boundin'" teaser, if that makes you feel any better.
The Incredibles teaser featured music from score to On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is a pretty sure indicator that Pixar knows how to make movies that rock.
No, I'm not joking!
Originally posted by 709
Gah. Las Vegas sideshow characters take over the 'A Bug's Life' set. I was not impressed.
i agree. and i think i know why... it's the "narrator/soundtrack". some of the best pixar shorts rely on old fashioned physical expression and comedy a la silent film making. even "geri's game," which wasn't exactly silent, but everything was captured without an unce of dialog to capture the mood.
ah well, pixar has surprised me before...
otherwise, i think pixar has been a boon to animation. it set the bar higher than ever.
animation is at a high watermark today.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
SKMDC, you're going to regret that prediction (won't be a blockbuster) in a few months. Just like Moogs (was it him?) and his infamous Finding Nemo prediction.
i don't recall myself making a prediction. i said it looks different and it's done by an outsider, and it looked like it was aimed at an older audience.
earlier in the thread i said i thought it wouldn't do nemo numbers.
i think of the term blockbuster to be $200 mil. there were movies out this year that did $100 mil and lost money.
whoever predicted nemo's fate said it looked crappy and was doomed, i didn't say that about "the incredibles"
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
the next pixar release "The Incredibles" doesn't look very "pixarish" and doesn't look to be a blockbuster, and although i think it looks funny, probably won't do nemo numbers. in fact i think the may be giving them something just to fill the commitment.
Pixar films are the safest money-making bets in the industry. This movie is more than likely to exceed 200 million at the box office, meeting and exceeding your criteria for a blockbuster. Sure it may not do nemo numbers, but it's safe to say it will do very well. Blockbuster-well.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Pixar films are the safest money-making bets in the industry. This movie is more than likely to exceed 200 million at the box office, meeting and exceeding your criteria for a blockbuster. Sure it may not do nemo numbers, but it's safe to say it will do very well. Blockbuster-well.
Pixar films were a safe bet with Disney behind them. I don't think that is so true now with not only not Disney behind them, but possibly even competing against them.
There were tons of films that wouldn't even be scheduled against Pixar releases because of the marketing that would drown out their release. We don't know if that will be true now.
Nick
i'm not saying it's a good or bad idea... i'm just saying...
edit: sorry, i first said pixar/disney merger... brain running on half-empty these days.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Pixar films are the safest money-making bets in the industry. This movie is more than likely to exceed 200 million at the box office, meeting and exceeding your criteria for a blockbuster. Sure it may not do nemo numbers, but it's safe to say it will do very well. Blockbuster-well.
shawn, i don't mean to be belligerent and i don't want it to sound like i'm bashing a movie i've never seen, but if disney thought it was going to be a 200 million dollar movie it would be coming out in the summer, not november.
Originally posted by trumptman
Pixar films were a safe bet with Disney behind them. I don't think that is so true now with not only not Disney behind them, but possibly even competing against them.
There were tons of films that wouldn't even be scheduled against Pixar releases because of the marketing that would drown out their release. We don't know if that will be true now.
Nick
The Incredibles is a Disney/Pixar release.
What Pixar needs, post Disney, is a distributor. Apple's entire presence in film marketing and distribution is... the QuickTime Previews page. Not good enough. Someone like the WB or Fox or a similar large film publisher is what Pixar is looking for.
If Pixar needs a sweet deal on 1,100 Xserves, they can probably get one.