Can We Call Nemo A Success?

[FriendsOfEeyore]

After only 10 days, it appears by estimates that Nemo is at $143.3M. Considering that Production was around $91M and Marketing estiamtes are around $40M, can we already predict that Nemo is a success for Disne/ Pixar?

I think that it is time that we start the engines in Car #2.

Thoughts?

 

[HB2K]

I think that it is time that we start the engines in Car #2.

If anything it's a reason you should be jumping to car three.

How does the fact that Disney's reliance on an outside company to produce a quality feature animated film represent a return to the successful business practices of yesterday?

It doesn't.

P.S. I think the movie is a success. Pixar is the Disney company of this generation (from an animation standpoint).

 

[lrodk]

Considering that most films easily triple their box-office take in DVD/Video sales, even films that do not seemingly do well during theatrical release end up being successful.

 

[Golter]

Yes it is a success and it will very beneficial for both PIXAR and DIS. Pixar is really benefiting from the DIS branding. The leverage has tilted towards PIXAR somewhat, but not to the degree that most think.

Final box office count should be 250 - 300 million, that will be a success. Lets hope PoC can be a success as well, I dont think it will do 250 -300,but it could easily do 200.

 

[SnackyStacky]

I'd have to agree with HB2K.

And I'm not looking for ways to poo-poo Disney, but I was talking about this with the people that I saw the movie with last night.

I don't know if relations have improved between Pixar and Disney since the Toy Story 2 fiasco, but if Pixar decides not to renew their contract with Disney, Disney will be losing a valuable asset. And while perhaps people are only seeing the Pixar movies because of the Disney name attached, once they do another movie by themselves or with another production company, word will spread that it wasn't necessarily Disney that made the movies good.

While I do hope that this is a sign of things to come for Disney, I would highly doubt it. Pixar movies have been great since Toy Story, but the traditional animation has suffered.

Just my $.02!

 

[Bob O]

I would agree with HB2K!!!!!
The movie will be/is a big success and while some may claim it has to do with disney that is far from the truth. This is a result of the great work at Pixar and it is disney who is benefitting from them and not the other way around.
Or are we supposed to think eisner is behind these movies rather than Lassitier.

 

[KMovies]

OK - let's not give Disney any credit. Marketing doesn't do a thing for movies.

Anger Management - not Sony. It was Revolution Studios.

Ice Age - not Fox. It was Regency Pictures.

Come on - all of the film studios partner up with other production companies.

Pixar made the films. Disney marketed them successfully. Great partnership.

Let's keep slamming Disney. It's more fun than looking at how much money both Pixar and Disney will make from the partnership.

Honestly, if Pixar had teamed up with another studio - would they have been more successful? One would doubt it.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by KMovies
One would doubt it.

Why? Your whole argument was that other studios marketed the films? If the marketing is such a big part then why can't another studio good at marketing been just as successful or even better?

 

[FriendsOfEeyore]

Why not???

Because, I still think that general public associates Disney with animation. Therefore, when they are associated with it, it helps. Nemo (as with TS, TS2, MI) beneifts both Pixar and Disney. They both also push the movie in the market place. I think that it is because of each other, that they are both successful.

I think that New Line would not have as great of an impact on Nemo as the potential revenue streams that the name Disney does. You can market the plush animals thru the Disney store and at the parks. You can create attactrations based on the movies.

I am not sure if say Universal was behind Nemo, that you would have seen the push for plush at you local Target or Walmart prior to the release. It is hard for stores to give up value marketing (floor) space like Disney did with Nemo.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by FriendsOfEeyore

I think that New Line would not have as great of an impact on Nemo as the potential revenue streams that the name Disney does. You can market the plush animals thru the Disney store and at the parks. You can create attactrations based on the movies.

I am not sure if say Universal was behind Nemo, that you would have seen the push for plush at you local Target or Walmart prior to the release. It is hard for stores to give up value marketing (floor) space like Disney did with Nemo. [/B]

Wait....a minute..there was a push for plush with Nemo? Your saying this is what made people want to see the movie? Or that Disney "might" build an attraction around it?

Ice Age has been brought up? Was there a push for plush with that movie? What about Shrek?

No sorry I think a movies box-office results have more to do with the quality of the movie then how many different plush figures you can collect. All of that other stuff is ancillary.

 

[Golter]

Public perception is PIXAR is Disney and vice-versa. People will come out to see a Disney/Pixar film because it's Disney/Pixar. Another company cannot market a animated feature as well as Disney.

 

[FriendsOfEeyore]

No I was not saying that there was a push for plush. What I am saying is that Disney had the plush out in it's stores 3 weeks prior to the opening of the movie. This way the kids can become familiar with the characters and want to go.

Regarding Shreck, I loved the moive. I have it dvd, but I do not remember any real marketing prior to the release. I went to see it, because of the great reviews and Mike Myers.

 

[raidermatt]

Let's be real here... There's no doubt that Pixar has benefitted from Disney's name and "synergy". If Pixar had teamed up with anyone else, they would not have had the success they have had with Disney. Box office successes, yes, but Disney's ability to market and cross-promote the films in its park and with its merchandise was a perfect fit.

However, whether Pixar has benefitted in the past is not the point... What's done is done.

I still think Disney is the best fit for Pixar going forward, but its not quite the slam dunk it was 10 years ago. Pixar's name means something on its own now. With five successes in a row, coupled with many less than stellar Disney efforts without the Pixar name, the public is learning. Disney's theatrical releases of films produced by their television animation division do not help their case.

If Fox can take Ice Age and gross $170 million for Regency Pictures, certainly they, or another major studio, could do just fine with upcoming Pixar releases, if they are of the same appeal as past Pixar releases. Pixar could make separate licensing deals for park attractions and merchandising, possibly even with Disney involved.

Public perception is PIXAR is Disney and vice-versa. People will come out to see a Disney/Pixar film because it's Disney/Pixar.

I disagree, but one thing we know for sure... the public will no longer come out to see a Disney film just because its Disney. Yet they are coming out to see Disney/Pixar films, and they've shown they are willing to come out to see a Dreamworks or Blue Sky (isn't that the name of the Ice Age animation studio?) film.

If the Disney name meant that much to movie-goers, Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Return to Neverland, Jungle Book 2, and Piglet's Big Movie would have found greater box office success. Even Lilo and Stitch, for all the praise it received, failed to match any of Pixar's releases, or Shrek or Ice Age.

 

[HB2K]

Pixar is really benefiting from the DIS branding. The leverage has tilted towards PIXAR somewhat, but not to the degree that most think.

You're kidding right?

OK - let's not give Disney any credit. Marketing doesn't do a thing for movies.

OK to answer your question you have to decide one of the two options:

1) Disney intentionally tanks the advertising for their movies, since none of them has made as much as a Pixar film.

2) Marketing doesn't mean as much as you think it does.

Honestly, if Pixar had teamed up with another studio - would they have been more successful? One would doubt it.

So let me get this straight....you think Disney is the only company that can market a movie?

Puleeze....

Because, I still think that general public associates Disney with animation. Therefore, when they are associated with it, it helps. Nemo (as with TS, TS2, MI) beneifts both Pixar and Disney. They both also push the movie in the market place. I think that it is because of each other, that they are both successful.

I think that New Line would not have as great of an impact on Nemo as the potential revenue streams that the name Disney does. You can market the plush animals thru the Disney store and at the parks. You can create attactrations based on the movies.

I am not sure if say Universal was behind Nemo, that you would have seen the push for plush at you local Target or Walmart prior to the release. It is hard for stores to give up value marketing (floor) space like Disney did with Nemo.

So Ice Age did poorly because it didn't have the Disney name behind it?

Oh...that's right, Ice age made a fortune.

Weird.

Ice Age has been brought up? Was there a push for plush with that movie? What about Shrek?

There were toys readily available for both Shrek & Ice Age.

Public perception is PIXAR is Disney and vice-versa. People will come out to see a Disney/Pixar film because it's Disney/Pixar. Another company cannot market a animated feature as well as Disney.

WOW! Disney's the only company with magic AND marketing!

Once again...Puleeze. Do some research before you make statements like that.

I can think of two big examples which shatter your theory...

Shrek
Ice Age

I went to see it, because of the great reviews and Mike Myers.

So what's more important? A crappy movie who's toys are in stores MONTHS ahead of the movie or a good movie who has positive reviews?

P.S. Treasure Planet Merchandise was in the stores MONTHS ahead of it's theatrical release. Didn't seem to help.

Maybe Disney should use this "Magical" marketing for their own films....hey it's the marketing that makes the Pixar films a success, right?

Box office successes, yes, but Disney's ability to market and cross-promote the films in its park and with its merchandise was a perfect fit.

Matt,

Honestly what has Disney done to cross promote Pixar's work in their parks? I'm struggling to think of ANYTHING other than a restaurant, a garage door & a hotel wing.

(edit: I just remembered a Bug's Carny Land....I'm still not impressed with this mythical cross promotion)

Pixar could make separate licensing deals for park attractions and merchandising, possibly even with Disney involved.

Or a company who's been actively investing in their own parks....just imagine a Pixar Island in a certain park.

 

[raidermatt]

I'm not saying Disney has maximized its used of Pixar's films (or its own for that matter), but besides Bugland, there is also "Its Tough to be a Bug", which is in two parks, and "Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin" in MK. DL also had a Toy Story show which has since closed.

Again, not to say Pixar must stick with Disney, just that it has been a mutually beneficial relationship. Not as beneficial for Disney as having there OWN creative successes, but beneficial nonetheless.

Or a company who's been actively investing in their own parks....just imagine a Pixar Island in a certain park.

That's why I'm saying its not the slam dunk it was 10 years ago. Pixar has more leverage and more options. Consequently, if Disney wants to continue the relationship, it will have to be in a deal slanted more towards Pixar than the current deal.

Its also important to remember that if Pixar does go elsewhere, they will be starting from scratch in some ways. Disney owns all of the films (and the associated merchandising) under the current agreement, so any deals another studio/company makes with Pixar to use Pixar characters/films in other parks will only be for post-"Cars" characters.

Clearly Disney has taken on the role of middle-man in this relationship, which is a bad strategic move, but that doesn't mean Pixar would be better off with someone else. It all depends on what another studio is willing to offer.

 

[HB2K]

I'm not saying Disney has maximized its used of Pixar's films (or its own for that matter), but besides Bugland, there is also "Its Tough to be a Bug", which is in two parks, and "Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin" in MK. DL also had a Toy Story show which has since closed.

Again, not to say Pixar must stick with Disney, just that it has been a mutually beneficial relationship. Not as beneficial for Disney as having there OWN creative successes, but beneficial nonetheless.

I hear you Matt. I was just struggling to think of anything. And to be honest the only real quality attraction is ITTBAB. Buzz, while fun when it was new, is showing it's age and Disney has shown ZERO interest in keeping it up.

My point was as much as people thump about the breadth of Disney's cross promotion, there has been very little of it, and when there has been some it's been less than desirable.

That's why I'm saying its not the slam dunk it was 10 years ago. Pixar has more leverage and more options. Consequently, if Disney wants to continue the relationship, it will have to be in a deal slanted more towards Pixar than the current deal.

I wasn't really directing that comment at you more towards the "Pixar owes Disney" comments in this thread....

Its also important to remember that if Pixar does go elsewhere, they will be starting from scratch in some ways. Disney owns all of the films (and the associated merchandising) under the current agreement, so any deals another studio/company makes with Pixar to use Pixar characters/films in other parks will only be for post-"Cars" characters.

While I see your point (and didn't Walt go through the same thing?) here's my point of why Pixar isn't starting from scratch.

They built the name brand recognition through out this deal.

If anything, they piggy backed off of Disney's good will early in the deal and then out right took it at the end.

Whether the car 1&2ers care to admit it or not, people know who Pixar is, and when / if they venture out on their own the press will be sure to stress their past....even if Pixar doesn't own the rights to those characters.

Pixar is in a GREAT position. Anyone who thinks differently is crazy.

 

[airlarry!]

I wonder if John L. reads these boards?


If he does, then HBK2 and Raidermatt's little discussion gave me an idea.

I don't there is a question that the symbiotic relationship between Pixar and Disney is equally beneficial to both sides. And that goes for the continued relationship.

Could someone please whisper in John L's ear that this is the time for him to demand better rides and more upkeep for the Pixar attractions? Cou$in Mike is in no position to argue right now...especially if they demand that Buzz be maintained (or even upgraded) and that a whole new land at MGM open up with John L's people working hand in hand with Imagineers and a nice budget.

 

[Another Voice]

Isn't it kinda of funny, however, that this fabulous Disney promotion/cross marketing/brand recognition/magic only works on Pixar films? It didn't seem like the Disney sticker didn't do much to improve the box office of Treasure Planet or Jungle Book 2 or Piglett's Big Movie or Atlantis?

I mean – if "Disney®" is so important that Pixar can't live without it – how come it don't work for Disney?

That fact is that the public doesn't really care about which studio releases – or even makes - the movie. Look at the marketing for Nemo. It's not "DISNEY DISNEY DISNEY DISNEY DISNEY" – the marketing is tagged around "from the makers of Toy Story and Monsters Inc.. The public is interested in who ever made those movies, not the studio. If "Disney" still had any brand power, all they would have to do is to show the sticker and there would not have been a reason to remind people of the other films. You certainly didn't see Nemo advertised as "from the studio that brought you Back to Neverland".

There's even a lot of buzz that the Disney name hurts film. There are even "rumors" that Disney's own internal numbers show both Lilo and Stich and Treasure by discouraging the adult and teenage audience. You'll also notice that "Disney's" has disappeated from the front of Pirates of the Caribbean – the concern is so high that Curse of the Black Pearl is already to go if too many show a negative reaction to the theme park tie-in.

All of those cheesy sequels, all of the TV-shows dumped onto DVD, all of those bad features have taken their toll on The Brand. When you've slapped a sticker on everything from breakfast cereal to band-aids to cheesy reality shows it tends to loose any meaning as a signal for motion picture excellence.


P.S. Theme parks rides help the theme park, not the movie studio.

 

[HB2K]

Could someone please whisper in John L's ear that this is the time for him to demand better rides and more upkeep for the Pixar attractions? Cou$in Mike is in no position to argue right now...especially if they demand that Buzz be maintained (or even upgraded) and that a whole new land at MGM open up with John L's people working hand in hand with Imagineers and a nice budget.

What purpose does Pixar have by demanding things about the theme park attractions (also stated by AV)?

Here's another point....does Pixar get a cut of any of the merchandising dollars earned by their creations? Or does Disney keep the full cut since they own the intellectual rights to the characters?

 

[FriendsOfEeyore]

Great Question HB2K, I would like to know the answer.

As far as the rest of this thread. I was in no way trying to imply that it was Disney that made this film a success. As many OP have stated, early on Pixar use the Disney name to get a foot in the door. Pixar is very good at what they do, and I will take nothing away from them.

I only hope that ME sees the relationship (good business relsults), and does whatever is necessary to continue this agreement within reason. He obviously can't give away the farm, but they should be able to find a meeting ground. Hopefully, the successes of the Pixar films has told ME that.

Edward