Can We Call Nemo A Success?

[airlarry!]

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

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

Young in the ways of the Force we are. On that log sit down, and questions I will answer:

Cou$in Mikey would ask, 'What's in it for me...er...the shareholders?'

Uncle Walt would ask, 'Why would I put my name on something that would not be kept up? Why would I lend my name and the trust the public has with me to anybody that won't develop top flight attractions based upon my ideas?'

Which one is the head of Pixar more closely alligned with? I don't know. I never met any of the three. (And a Bug's Land makes me wonder.)

But I would bet, after reading so many stories of the Pixar emphasis on story, story, story, and on John L's obsession with toys and child-like activities (just check out that campus!) that the people in charge of Pixar would want more creative control over what happens to their creations JUST FOR THE FACT that they could safeguard their 'brand.'

When it comes right down to it, HBK2 and AV, wouldn't you want that control too? Heck, me and Yoho! would pay 'em to let us design PixarLand.

What purpose would Pixar have to control their creations in the theme parks?

To never let A Bugs Land happen again. There ain't a better reason in all the world, unless money is your sole motivation in life.

 

[HB2K]

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.

Honestly I think ME sees the current deal as "fair"....which is absurd. I think he'll grudgingly go with some type of new deal, but who knows what monkeywrenches he'll find a way to throw at Pixar through the deal.

Personally I think Pixar is better off away from Disney. This vaunted cross promotion is a joke....

You mean to tell me Pixar couldn't sell it's theme park rights to Universal (or for that matter you don't think Six Flags could have built bugsland?)

You mean to tell me Pixar couldn't sign a deal with Hasbro or some other toy manufacturer to produce their toys and have them all over Toys R Us et all (oh I forgot, Disney has the Disney stores to put all of the plush in....too bad noone shops there anymore).

 

[HB2K]

'Why would I put my name on something that would not be kept up? Why would I lend my name and the trust the public has with me to anybody that won't develop top flight attractions based upon my ideas?'

Pixar does not own any of the characters utilized in the Disney theme parks.

And further I do not think seeing the characters in a cheap setting goes back to Pixar (but it's just my opinion...I have nothing to back that up). People can tell a quality movie from a cheap theme park ride in a park in which the name PIXAR appears NOWHERE. (Again in my opinion).

In the next deal, I'm sure Pixar will not relenquish control of it's characters to anyone...and as such, Disney will probably be forced to sign a license agreement to use these characters in the parks. As a part of that license agreement, Pixar should be VERY protective of it's creations, since it will own them.

 

[Golter]

Name one traditionally animated(TA)film that has been a box office success since CG films hit the scenes. Tarzan $181 Mil, L&S $145 Mil, Mulan $128 Mil, are the only traditionally animated films to gross 125+ in the past 5 years. Someone can double check my numbers, I did it in a hurry. Only Chicken Run 106 Mil and Rugrats Movie 100 Mil are the only non-Disney Tradionally animated films to ever break 100 Mil. CG movies have replaced the traditionally animated films. So Disney has and does still do the best job with TA films. The demand for them is just not what it once was. I think Treasure Planet will be the last big budget TA film for a while.

Hindsight shows that Disney should have just acquired Pixar and made them an offer they could not have refused. But they did not have that luxury.

The arrangement right now is the best available.....for both.

 

[EUROPA]

The medium by which the story is told is Irrelevant in my opinion. CGI vs. hand drawn. It's the quality of the story that matters. Trust me if Pixar were doing their films by Traditional Animation they would be just a successful. You will see what I mean once Disney jumps on the CGI bandwagon with their current lacluster stories.

 

[Golter]

I cannot be convinced that if Shrek were traditionally animated it would have been the same success. Or any of the CG films, TS2 would have had the same feel of all the other sequals that have come out. You would have been complaining that it was not original.

 

[HB2K]

Pixar creates new characters that Disney can market till kingdom come.

I was with you up to this point.

I have yet to see how Pixar is benefiting (currently) from this deal...

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by Golter
Or any of the CG films, TS2 would have had the same feel of all the other sequals that have come out. You would have been complaining that it was not original.

I'm sorry this makes no sense at all...TS2 was original because it was in CGI ?? Is that what your saying?

 

[mrsR123]

Goodness, I think I'm motion-sick after reading this thread! Oh well, I never have been able to pick a car and stay in it.

With regard to marketing tie-ins: some may poo-poo the McDonalds and cereal boxes, but those of us with younger Disney fans do direct our dollars after those promos. Eventhough we do now own Shrek on video, we didn't plan our week's meals around when the new kid meal toys would be released like we are for Nemo.

Secondly, box office take is very deceptive for animated films, don't you think? Our family is not one that takes the whole kit and kaboodle to the theatre for anything less than a Disney flick-- and then it had better look good: we saw Tarzan and Lilo but nothing else recent. Nemo's up for this weekend. Why would I pay fifty dollars or more for something mediocre when it'll be rentable for $3.00 in six months? Then, if we like it we'll buy it for $15.

Finally, TA vs. CGI: certainly I agree that the stories are what have made Pixar's ventures so successful, but would Sully have been so intriguing without all the wizardry of his fur? Would adults be as enchanted with Nemo's storyline if it's setting were not so realistically believable? Good CGI pushes a good story so much further. Don't believe me? Watch a "Barbie" princess video; those effects are scary!


P.S. I'm not as new as I look by my sign-on: I've been reading for three years and finally registered last month. It's much more fun to type than to just argue with the screen!

 

[Golter]

I'm saying that the film benefitted greatly from being the next in line of successful CG films. I'm not saying that they would have been unsuccessful, but no where near the degree.

 

[raidermatt]

If its just a matter of using CGI, why does Disney continue to make films in the inferior genre of hand drawn, wasting its massive marketing might? Why didn't Dinosaur, which was well-done technically, have the success of the Toy Story films, or even Lilo and Stitch?

On one of the other threads, crusader posted a link to an interview with John Lasseter, which I think is very relevant to where this discussion has turned. Essentially, Lasseter maintains that story is king....period.

CGI, animation, music, etc are all tools that are used to tell the story.

Yes, Pixar specializes in CGI, but they also develop stories that lend themselves to using CGI as a tool.

There's a great quote in that interview where Lasseter recounts an exchange with a Disney rep when Pixar was developing their first feature film. The Disney guy asks where the "8 songs" will be, and was shocked that there wouldn't be any (songs sung by characters, that is).

Pixar had chosen a story that was conducive to CGI, but did not lend itself to being a musical. This was apparently a foreign concept to the formula-driven method being used at the time at Disney. Part of successfully telling a story is choosing the right tools.

So of course Pixar's films probably did better as CGI than they would have done as hand drawn... but that's mostly because they made the effort to develop projects that lent themselves to CGI. Without the story being the first priority, they would have had Dinosaur, not Toy Story.


On the theme park attraction front, I completely agree with Larry. I don't think Pixar NEEDS the theme park attractions to make their movies successful, but certainly its a form of advertising for them. If they care about the public's perception of their name, they would want any product with their characters in it to be of the same quality their films are. Similar to Lucas refusing to do a low-budget re-tooling of Star Tours.

Secondly, box office take is very deceptive for animated films, don't you think?

If you mean that it doesn't tell the whole story about the success or failure of a film, then yes, I agree. But if you mean it doesn't give you an idea about the relative success when comparing films, then no, I don't really agree.

If Nemo stunk, and nobody was going to see it, and nobody was talking about it (except to say it stunk), you wouldn't be planning your meals around the toy releases at McDonald's.

There's nothing wrong with marketing tie-ins, but they don't determine the success or failure of a film.

I'm not as new as I look by my sign-on: I've been reading for three years and finally registered last month. It's much more fun to type than to just argue with the screen!

Yes! I agree. Please continue to join in... the more the merrier...

 

[Bob O]

DIsney apologists want/wish that people would think pixar/disney are the same, but of course the truth is far idfferent!!!!
People are intellgent enough to know what is produced by disney and what isnt. Maybe 2 yrs olds dont know but the parents who buy the tickets sure know.
It all comes down to the story!!!!!!!! If the story is bad it doesnt matter if it is cgi/ta.
Right now Pixar doesnt need disney but disney does need Pixar as they have shown little ability to create animated films that large numbers of people want to see and movies that can be used in their theme parks.
And earlier someone mentioned that Nemo wouldnt have done as well if it had the new line name tag associated with it. So under this reasoning are we too believe that the LOTR trilogy would have done better if it was associated with disney???
Its all in the STORY and that is something disney hasnt forgotton!!!! And they suffer because of it and not because of cgi/ta!!!

 

[HB2K]

Finally, TA vs. CGI: certainly I agree that the stories are what have made Pixar's ventures so successful, but would Sully have been so intriguing without all the wizardry of his fur? Would adults be as enchanted with Nemo's storyline if it's setting were not so realistically believable? Good CGI pushes a good story so much further. Don't believe me? Watch a "Barbie" princess video; those effects are scary!

I'm just speaking from experince, but I wasn't sitting in the theater saying "Man, Sully's hair really looks sharp".

I was paying attention to the story of Boo, Sully & Mike.

The one thing I will chime in about that I feel makes Pixar different than any other animation....the colors.

All of the Pixar characters (even the extras) are ULTRA colorful. Most of Disney's (& Dreamworks) latest flicks are so drab (Lilo excluded).

I think that makes more of a difference in how well the movie does than what art form was used to create it.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I agree that it all comes down to story.

There is no doubt that Pixar is very good for Disney, especially given that Disney is downsizing their own animation capabilities and may or may not have their own GCI capabilities in the future. However, I don't believe that Disney needs Pixar to produce a successful animated feature. Sure, those who think Disney can do no right will point to Atlantis and Treasure Planet as evidence of the failure of Disney feature animation. However, I believe the lackluster performance of these films has more to do with bad choices on story than it has to do with bad animation. What Disney needs, as much as they need Pixar for CGI, is to choose better stories for whatever animation projects, if any, they produce on their own in the future.

 

[raidermatt]

DK, I agree, I'm just not sure Disney really knows HOW to focus completely on story anymore, at least with any consistency. I don't mean there aren't individuals who get it, but it takes more than that. Management needs to hire and retain the talented storytellers, and then trust them to do their job.

I can't prove this of course, but it seems to me that Disney places barriers for the storytellers to work around, while Pixar greases the wheels for them.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I'm just not sure Disney really knows HOW to focus completely on story anymore, at least with any consistency. I don't mean there aren't individuals who get it, but it takes more than that. Management needs to hire and retain the talented storytellers, and then trust them to do their job.

I'm not even sure it is a matter of bad storytellers or a lack of focus on storytelling. It might just be that they are choosing bad stories to tell. We've been around on this one before, but I think action/adventure is the wrong genre for a blockbuster animated feature. Atlantis and Treasure Planet just didn't appeal to a wide enough audience. A film like Nemo does and I think that is a big part of it's success. I'm not sure who is responsible for picking the stories, but give the Disney animators a good story to work with and I bet they can tell it well. Lilo gives us some evidence to that effect.

 

[HB2K]

I'm not sure who is responsible for picking the stories, but give the Disney animators a good story to work with and I bet they can tell it well. Lilo gives us some evidence to that effect.

You also need to keep the film from being picked apart by upper management. Lilo gives my stance evidence. The film was created without the input of ME, et al. where as Treasure Planet didn't have that autonomy (there was a rumor that Ei$ner ordered all of the swords out of the film. I haven't seen it, so I don't know if it happened, but it's an indication of the needling that cannot continue).

 

[crusader]

Pixar offers a fresh innovative approach to their films with such intensity it resonates through the screen. This is exactly what the classic disney films had the capability of doing before the successful integration of CGI.

Lasseter is asked a very powerful question in that interview -

Q: Are people still interested in 2D animation?

JR: Is 2D dead? OK maybe we will have another question after all.

JL: I want to ask, 'Is, black and white dead? Would Raging Bull be as good in colour?' Whenever a new technology comes into an art form everyone thinks it is going to replace something. I think it has nothing to do with technology but what you do with technology, how you tell a story. It's like if you think back in art history, when photography was first invented everyone thought it would replace painting. It hasn't - it is an entirely different art form. Computer animation will continue to grow but it won't replace hand-drawn animation. There is still a lot you can do hand-drawn that you can't do on computers. It depends on subject matter and style.

While his answer was no - it fails to address the more important issue - whether CA has the ability to generate any real box office return at the present time. My feeling is No - not because the talent doesn't exist to create such a masterpiece, but because that type of film is more familiar to the audience than CGI. An adult making the purchase decision may have more of an inclination to avoid sitting through something they've done for years vs something new and alive.

Bashing Disney for not grabbing this company or not developing the capability inhouse is convenient after the fact. What I see is the Walt of yesterday in the Lasseter of today. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain in his vision and worked diligently to create what we see today. He attributes this to the dynamic genius of Ed Catmull along with himself. More importantly, he was not willing to relinquish his work or his business to anyone. He could not be bought and he is the best. I give Disney credit for gaining what they have from this genius - which is what I consider to be the absolute finest this industry has to offer.

I also give Pixar credit for recognizing the importance in utilizing Disney's capabilities. They would never have gotten this far this successfully without such a valuable component. And don't kid yourself for one minute into thinking "merchandising" doesn't matter.

 

[Another Voice]

"And don't kid yourself for one minute into thinking "merchandising" doesn't matter."

It doesn't matter one cent to the box office success of the film.

Merchandising is only a way of capitalizing on a success movie, but it doesn't work the other way around. The Power Puff Girls was a huge merchandising property from the TV series, yet the movie bombed. And Ice Age didn't have the benefit of theme park rides, Happy Meals or a hit song in heavy rotation on MTV.

There is only one thing that makes a movie successful:

Story

Everything else exists only to serve the story's need. The problem is that telling a good story is very difficult. If you're a studio executive is zero talent, it's much easier to sign deals to license t-shirts than it is to fix the script.

Eisner signs lots of contracts, people at Pixar write. That is the reason they are successful and Disney is an embarrassment.

 

[Golter]

IMHO the most a CA movie can do at the Box Office is 150Mil, so the budgets will be less.

"It doesn't matter one cent to the box office success of the film."

Are you kidding, without the successes and promotions and theme park tie-ins of prior PIXAR films, Nemo would not have opened with 70+ Mil. If it's not marketing then how could millions of people already know that it was a good story.