Can We Call Nemo A Success?

[HB2K]

Using your example, Nemo will end up making twice what Lilo did. Was it twice as good?

No, Nemo wasn't twice as good. The movies from each company that preceeded Nemo & Stich were vastly different in quality.

One too many RTN's...people are associating the Disney brand with cheap products (including the movies). It's almost like L&S succeeded in spite of the company who created it.

 

[Golter]

Does anyone dispute that whatever the next CG film released is, it will draw better than whatever the next TA film released is. I don't even know what they will be or when they are coming out. And I'm talking feature films (I wont even count all of the Nic movie of the week). If Shrek 2 was released TA, do you really think it would draw the same as if it was CG, regardless of the story.

Have you seen the Buzz light year cartoons, they are weak to even look at. If they were CG they would be better.

I'm not downplaying story, you have to have a good story, but the same story told on CG will do better than same feature done with TA.

 

[raidermatt]

If $125 million is the domestic "standard", throw Jimmy Neutron into the failure category... In fact, besides the Pixar releases, for CGI, only Shrek and Ice Age make the cut.

If we are "going worldwide", here's the top grossers, as I pulled them from boxofficemojo.com.

The Lion King (94) - $789.3 million
Monsters (01) - $529.1 million
Aladdin (92) - $502 million
TS2 (99) - $485 million
Shrek (01) - $482 million
Tarzan (99) - $456 million
Ice Age (02) - $378 million
Beauty and the Beast (91) - $378 million
A Bug's Life (98) - $363 million
Toy Story (95) - $361 million
Dinosaur (00) - $356 million
Pocahontas (95) - $347 million
Hunchback (96) - $325 million
Mulan (98) - $304 million
L&S (02) - $273 million
Bambi (42) - $268 million
Spirited Away (01) - $267 million
Hercules (97) - $252 million
Mermaid (89) - $230 million
Prince of Egypt (98) - $218 million

(Feel free to double check, as I did pull these quickly)

Look, in my opinion, it would not be smart to not at least allow for the possibility that CGI is becoming the dominant form due to the public's opinion that it is superior.

The facts do not prove that position, but they do show its a possibility.

But it is also just plain silly to not acknowledge the fact that from an overall story/quality/appeal perspective, Pixar can run circles around Disney right now.

Is anyone actually saying that the use of CGI is anywhere near as big a factor as other quality differences in the films?

Is Nemo twice as good as Lilo? Ignoring the fact that box office does not always equate to an exact measurement of relative quality/appeal... Maybe... I really like Lilo, but it does have some flaws... I don't want to get into debating what those are on this thread, but its not out of the question to say that Nemo is vastly superior to Lilo.

Does that mean that all of Pixar's and even Disney's Dinosaur and Fox's Ice Age were better movies than all of the handdrawn films from any studio during this time period.

For the Pixar films, yes, no question. Dinosaur? By saying it grossed more than any hand-drawn, I assume we are talking worldwide because Lilo out-drew it domestically. Also, Tarzan was only one year earlier and outdrew it both domestically and worldwide. That said, sure, a case can be made that Dinosaur was better than any hand-drawn film since 2000... Atlantis? Treasure Planet? As previously stated on other threads by many of the posters on this thread, action adventure in animation does not work, period.

Most certainly Ice Age was "better" than those.

What is important is that whether you do CGI or hand drawn, or some hybrid, story, quality and appeal are going to determine your relative success. Disney is clearly struggling in this area, and consequently, is forced to seek out content from others and accept the humble role of middle-man.

Its also clear that even if CGI does not completely replace hand drawn, it is most definitely "here to stay", and Disney decided after Dinosaur to stay out of producing such films themselves. If one feels that CGI is indeed going to replace all but the occasional hand drawn feature, one should be quite critical about Disney's strategy of going solely with hand drawn...

 

[crusader]

It's the film – not the technology.

AV - It's really both in terms of the box office success of Nemo.
The story is fantastic which makes the movie worth seeing but the technology is equally spectacular in this picture.

Tech drives audience. CGI is the buzz in hollywood for a reason - It sells. And when something is hot everybody wants in. Pixar has a 20 year jump in the animation industry which is why they are so coveted.

But is Disney feeling the loss? Both companies made this happen and both companies have reaped the financial benefits.

 

[EUROPA]

Ok so you guys are saying that as soon as a film is produced with CGI its a rubber stamp to get 150 million plus?

 

[Golter]

No, were saying that CG films do better at the box office as a whole. It will be very difficult for a TA film to gross 150, it will easier if the film is CG.

Raider- I did not include Jimmy Neutron as one of the 8 films (out of 12) that have been successes.

I'm going to put this one to bed, I've stated my position(several times) and backed it up with facts.

Summary:

CG, at this time, is a better medium for animated features. The public likes the look and feel of CG and are willing to pay to see it. For a TA feature to gross 125 mil, a lot is going to have to right. It will need an excellent story, great marketing, great timing, luck, and for the stars to line up perfectly. Its not that difficult for CG, look at Dinosaur. It had none of the above and was able to do it.

 

[FriendsOfEeyore]

Wow...

So the question remains.. Can we call Nemo a success?

Answer: Yes.

I think that I get the idea that different people have reasons as to why it is a success. Let's give Pixar 80% credit and Disney 20%.

BTW, thanks to all the posters. This is my first post to exceed 1000 views.

 

[raidermatt]

The ONLY fact, Sir Golter, is that recent CGI releases have fared better, on average, than recent hand drawn releases. The rest of your statement about why this is happening is merely opinion (not that your opinion is less valid than others...).

Some think its mainly (or at least significantly) due to the CGI itself, and others think its mainly (or even completely) due to the overall quality and appeal of the film, with CGI being one tool in making that quality and appeal happen.

 

[airlarry!]

Pixar's goal is to do ONE movie about every year to 18 months.

During the New Golden Age of Disney movies (let's say for argument's sake from Little Mermaid to Tarzan), the company was releasing animated features, I would submit, on average about every 18 months.

Now?

Disney releases one movie every three months!

CGI, schmigi.

If Disney were to space out their offerings, and quit putting out so many movies, and make the animated fans wait again for The Next Big Event (which, some of you may recall, was what it used to be like everytime we waited literally months and months for the next animated feature), then you will see them pulling in the numbers now.

On a second note, as to why Pixar's box office take just keeps going up and up, and Disney's got a line heading down on the chart? I think it that Pixar's style has a built-in audience that awaits the next Disney-Pixar movie. Most of my friends think of Pixar movies as Disney or Diosne-Pixar computer mvies as they call 'em. Their track record is good in my friend's eyes...so consequently they are ready to buy their tix when they come out.

I think Disney has lost that trust.

And that's my HO why Nemo is a success. B/C it kept the audience's trust.

BTW: my wife rented JB2. it's playing in the background as I type this. Toy Story 2 was a sequel only b/c it had the same characters. The crud that's playing in my DVD is lifeless dreck, regurgitated using some canned script formula plug-in computer program.

 

[JeffH]

Now with Finding Nemo back at the top of the box office, wonder how long it will stay there? The Rugrats didn't seem to affect it's draw at all. I'm sure the claim to be #1 again will help inspire more to see it. I'm sure that Hulk will get #1 next week and Nemo will slip to 2nd again, but what will happen the week after when Charlies Angels opens and the Hulk starts to slip?
I figured it would bounce back (like Shrek did), considering the strong 2nd week it had, and that I figured 2 Fast and 2 Furious would die quick after it's big opening.

 

[Planogirl]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Does anybody think that Ice Age was a better story or film than Lilo & Stitch?

I did but then I've always been an odd one when it came to these movies. Ice Age made me laugh and I liked the way it looked but I was one of the two Disney fans that didn't respond to Lilo.

I'd love to know what the non-Disney fanatics thought of the two movies.

 

[Mr D]

I would call Nemo a success....for Pixar that is