PDA

View Full Version : DISNEY/PIXAR 'CARS' Races to No. 1; Weekend's B.O. Up 15% From Last Year...


RobertoOrtiz
06-11-2006, 06:24 PM
Quote:
"Disney/Pixar's Cars Races to #1 For 2nd Best June Opening Weekend; Vince/Jen Break-Up No. 2; No. 3 X-Men Hits $201 Mil; " (http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/disneys-cars-no-1-at-box-office-tows-almost-19-million-friday/)

>>LINK<< (http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/disneys-cars-no-1-at-box-office-tows-almost-19-million-friday/)
-R

GaryHaus
06-11-2006, 07:18 PM
To all you folks at PIXAR. Hats off! Stellar job. Everything was just fantastic on all fronts. No words for how entertaining and fun this movie was. The technical achievements were just phenomenal!

Cheers!

Ian Coetzee
06-11-2006, 10:05 PM
Go pixar! Our inspiration.

Shaderhacker
06-12-2006, 12:06 AM
Congrats once again! :thumbsup:

-M

CIM
06-12-2006, 06:46 AM
What a surprise.

lazzhar
06-12-2006, 07:51 PM
Congrats !

DaddyMack
06-12-2006, 10:03 PM
That film was insane... and the merchandising looks a dream;)

Proper respect and congratulations to the pioneers at pixar:bowdown:

Raji
06-13-2006, 04:22 AM
77% on rottentomatoes.com.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10004076-cars/?beg=49&int=25&page=3

I've been waiting for their first slip for some time. I think it's gonna be a rocky road from here on out. I think it's about time. I'm sure they're awesome to work for, i know they are technically head and shoulders above everyone else (mostly because they have more cash than everyone else does), etc etc etc. but their stories were never that stellar... and i'm growing tired of their near-monopoly of the animation in film. It's time to see another giant rise and fall.

Njen
06-13-2006, 04:37 AM
77% on rottentomatoes.com.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10004076-cars/?beg=49&int=25&page=3

I've been waiting for their first slip for some time. I think it's gonna be a rocky road from here on out. I think it's about time. I'm sure they're awesome to work for, i know they are technically head and shoulders above everyone else (mostly because they have more cash than everyone else does), etc etc etc. but their stories were never that stellar... and i'm growing tired of their near-monopoly of the animation in film. It's time to see another giant rise and fall.

Pixar have yet to 'fall'. If you call 77% on RT a 'fall', then by that measure, every other animation company has failed. All of Pixar's other films have all scored above 90%.

There will always be hiccups, some films will be better liked than others.

By the way, Pixar don't hold a near-monoply of animation in film. Do you know what a monoply is? It's not like they are forcing people to see their films, or are buying out the competition underhandedly. Other studios are free to release their own amazing films, it's not like Pixar are holding anyone back...

Raji
06-13-2006, 04:44 AM
All of Pixar's other films have all scored above 90%.my point exactly. They've set such a high standard for themselves that it gets harder and harder to be better with every film they make. So by the standards THEY set for themselves (90% and over), they've started to slip.

i know what a monopoly is. It's just that i've read SO many articles that compared, for example, a Dreamworks film to Pixar when explaining why it wasn't as good as they'd hoped. Again, the super-high standard is hard to match no matter who you are.

Dirtystimpy
06-13-2006, 04:47 AM
call me crazi Raji, but I think PDI's "shrek2" is the highest grossing 3D Animated movie of all time....hardly a "monopoly"

Raji
06-13-2006, 04:51 AM
again, i'm just saying that nobody has unanimously LOVED cg movies like they have loved Pixar movies.

is nobody else tired of Pixar? I'm just rooting for the underdog here, whoever that ends up being next.

Njen
06-13-2006, 04:55 AM
Consider the following RT scores (in order of release date):

Toy Story - 100
A Bug's Lilfe - 91
Toy Story 2 - 100
Monsters Inc - 95
Finding Nemo - 98
The Incredibles - 97
Cars - 77

Even though it is quite obvious that Cars is not up to the other films, I highly doubt that there is a downward trend here. No need to spell the death of Pixar yet. Even if you consider 77% to be a 'bad' score, then that means Pixar have had 6 fantastic films, and 1 not so fantastic film. If I was a betting man, I'd say that the odds are still greatly in Pixar's favour to produce amazing films.

6/7 ain't bad...

private
06-13-2006, 04:59 AM
I'm sure they're awesome to work for, i know they are technically head and shoulders above everyone else (mostly because they have more cash than everyone else does), etc etc etc. but their stories were never that stellar... and i'm growing tired of their near-monopoly of the animation in film. It's time to see another giant rise and fall.

I guess quality people have nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

Njen
06-13-2006, 05:02 AM
call me crazi Raji, but I think PDI's "shrek2" is the highest grossing 3D Animated movie of all time....hardly a "monopoly"

Thinking along those lines, here are the highest grossing 3D animated films (data from boxofficemojo.com):

Shrek 2 - $920,000,000
Finding Nemo - $864,000,000
The Incredibles - $631,000,000
Madagascar - $528,000,000
Monsters Inc - $525,000,000
Toy Story 2 - $485,000,000
Shrek - $484,000,000

Looks to me that Dreamworks and Pixar are almost neck and neck.

Andyman
06-13-2006, 06:13 AM
^ If I add those together, I come up with:

Dreamworks - 1,456,800,000.
Pixar - 2,505,000,000.

Not exactly neck and neck (1 billion in difference), but anyway - while the point of a business is to make money, of course, I don't think either Dreamworks or Pixar is trying to outdo the other in terms of total dollars in their warchest - just maybe at the iconic box office.

Njen
06-13-2006, 07:52 AM
^ If I add those together, I come up with:

Dreamworks - 1,456,800,000.
Pixar - 2,505,000,000.

Not exactly neck and neck (1 billion in difference), but anyway - while the point of a business is to make money, of course, I don't think either Dreamworks or Pixar is trying to outdo the other in terms of total dollars in their warchest - just maybe at the iconic box office.

Yeah, I guess if you add them up, Pixar is in front moneywise, I was looking at it from the angle that of the 7 highest grossing films, Pixar have 4, and Dreamworks have 3 (with a Dreamworks film in top spot).

f97ao
06-13-2006, 08:47 AM
^ If I add those together, I come up with:

Dreamworks - 1,456,800,000.
Pixar - 2,505,000,000.



What is interesting when looking at numbers is not the gross, but the total profit, so these numbers don't say that much.
/A

yeoj
06-13-2006, 10:01 AM
can't wait to see this! :thumbsup:

jewalker
06-13-2006, 05:33 PM
I guess quality people have nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

Exactly!

For an explanation as to why Pixar is heads and shoulders above everyone else technologically, read the article in this thread (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=369594).

Let's also not forget that Pixar is the first company to make CG animated films, and they've been doing this for 20 years!

MartyMcFly
06-13-2006, 06:17 PM
It also feels like Pixar films will easily stand the test of time. I enjoy the Dreamworks films as well, but when you have "American Idol" and "Justin Timberlake" pop culture jokes in your movie,.....they just won't be as funny down the road. A new Audience that didn't grow up on those jokes won't get them.

I can easily see people watch Toy Story, A bugs Life, Nemo, Incredibles, Cars, etc... For a LONG time

And I think Blue Sky is on a similar track. I think Ice age will stand the test of time as well. Maybe Robots as well,...but I didn't enjoy that one nearly as much as Ice Age.

I don't know...just my 2 cents.

Raji
06-22-2006, 05:43 AM
I guess quality people have nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:
quality people are everywhere in the industry. Success at the Pixar level comes from money to buy more quality people than the competition.

I took my wife and kid to see the film... it was fun, but it truly felt like a regurgitation of everything they've ever done in terms of plot structure. They've been doing this for a while, but now... i don't know, it just felt more obvious in this one.

It's my personal opinion that if they hadn't been bought by Disney or could have secured a deal with another studio like they were trying to, they might have had the freedom to roam in uncharted territory and break new ground in the world of animation. With their marriage to Disney, they're gonna be doing kid movies forever, until they find themselves doing Cars 2, Bug's Life 7/8ths and then 2 & 3, etc etc. I was always secretly hoping they would lead the way into films that were meant for adults. No, not porn, but maybe an R-rated Pixar movie. A PixaRRRR

robcat2075
06-22-2006, 06:13 AM
I bet that Cars was greenlit roughly the same time that Pixar found out Toy Story 2 wasn't going to count towards their initial contract with Disney and they started thinking about striking out on their own. I think they looked at everything they had on the drawing board and picked Cars as something that would be an entirely repectable but not extraordinarily valuble film to fill out the set.

In other words I don't think they are "losing their touch"; they have better films on tap. But since this film was going to be 100% owned by Disney if the contract did not get renegotiated, it was one they felt comfortable in losing control of.

swardson
06-22-2006, 06:29 AM
In other words I don't think they are "losing their touch"; they have better films on tap. But since this film was going to be 100% owned by Disney if the contract did not get renegotiated, it was one they felt comfortable in losing control of.

I seriously doubt Lassetter would allow something like the sour deal with Disney to cause him to want to "make a medocre film." From what I can tell overall, he cares more about a good story, loveable characters and and entertainment then trying to nail Disney in the pocketbook wherever he can.

If there is any less of a profit from this film as compared to previous films it is because of over saturation in the animation market, a pretty poor film season overall and the constant decline in box office sales that has been going on lately.

Just my thoughts,

Brad

Raji
06-22-2006, 06:33 AM
looking at the trailer for Ratatouille in 2007, it looks like it's still gonna have the same plot structure... for the billionth time... You've got 2 rats that are friends. One of them is fat and ultra-friendly, the dog-like "i'll always be true to our friendship" kind of personality and then the other rat that wants good food. The 2 rats are going to be separated in some way and their friendship tried, but in the end, they'll learn a valuable lesson and be best friends again... is nobody else bored to shit with this kind of plot structure in animation?

Final Fantasy was the only CG film to have tried something aimed at a mature audience but it failed miserably. I think it was a combination of the audience's lack of interest in anime (anime is big, but not THAT big yet) and the fact that it had never been tried before. So i think they tried too much too fast. But i think CG really needs to start trying to emulate what you've been seeing in film forever. Things like serious character development, complex storylines, moral ambiguity, etc.

For me personally, i've lost interest in watching animation... i still go and watch them because they're a fun little ride, but that's it. I find that regular films have so much more depth and personality that it's hard to watch an animated movie and take it seriously.

beaker
06-22-2006, 08:01 AM
Not exactly neck and neck (1 billion in difference), but anyway - while the point of a business is to make moneyBoth DW and Pixar have 2-3 other cgi films they did that aren't on that list.

Breinmeester
06-22-2006, 08:16 AM
looking at the trailer for Ratatouille in 2007, it looks like it's still gonna have the same plot structure... for the billionth time... You've got 2 rats that are friends. One of them is fat and ultra-friendly, the dog-like "i'll always be true to our friendship" kind of personality and then the other rat that wants good food. The 2 rats are going to be separated in some way and their friendship tried, but in the end, they'll learn a valuable lesson and be best friends again... is nobody else bored to shit with this kind of plot structure in animation?


I think you're way off and very presumetious.

It's very hard to put depth in animated films and therefore the majority of the studios doesn't do that. Apparently gags sell beter. But still, there's enough in a lot of animated features and I'm sure there's a market for it. Let's not forget FF had a very bad story, awfull animation and should've used actors against a greenscreen.
It just depends on what kind of genre your animation is. Most live action flicks don't have depth. I think the average Pixar films has more depth than the average live action film.

jewalker
06-22-2006, 06:36 PM
It's my personal opinion that if they hadn't been bought by Disney or could have secured a deal with another studio like they were trying to, they might have had the freedom to roam in uncharted territory and break new ground in the world of animation. With their marriage to Disney, they're gonna be doing kid movies forever, until they find themselves doing Cars 2, Bug's Life 7/8ths and then 2 & 3, etc etc. I was always secretly hoping they would lead the way into films that were meant for adults. No, not porn, but maybe an R-rated Pixar movie. A PixaRRRR

If you've ever heard John or Ed speak, you'd realize that Pixar would never make an R-rated film. John and Ed both grew up idolizing Disney. They've only ever wanted to make family friendly films. Family friendly doesn't mean that they have to be kids movies. Pirates of the Caribean is family friendly, but I don't think anyone considers it a kids movie. The acquisition by Disney isn't going to change the kind of films that they are going to make.

Raji
06-22-2006, 09:16 PM
I think you're way off and very presumetious.

way off and very presumptuous?

Toy Story 1: Woody's friendship with all his toys is challenged when a new toy comes along and shakes things up. He learns a lesson in the end and becomes friends with the new toy.
Toy Story 2: Woody is confronted with the fact that he won't last forever and has to choose between eternal life and his friendship with the gang (and his owner, Andy). He ends up making new friends.
Bug's Life: An outcast bug doesn't have any friends until he has to save the colony from a disaster. He finds bugs that will help them, makes friends with them and after their friendship is tried, they save the colony together.
Monsters Inc.: 2 monsters' friendship is tried when they get banned from their world, they learn more about each other and get back together and defeat the bad guys

how the hell is that way off and presumptuous? I could go on about Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Cars, all of which have almost exactly the same structure.


It's very hard to put depth in animated films and therefore the majority of the studios doesn't do that. Apparently gags sell beter. But still, there's enough in a lot of animated features and I'm sure there's a market for it. Let's not forget FF had a very bad story, awfull animation and should've used actors against a greenscreen.
It just depends on what kind of genre your animation is. Most live action flicks don't have depth. I think the average Pixar films has more depth than the average live action film
most live-action flicks don't have depth? What the hell are you watching? Movies like Cheaper by the Dozen 2? The Legend of Zorro? If Pixar's films have so much depth, where are their Saving Private Ryans? Where are their Se7ens? Where are their Gladiators?



jewalker, i didn't know that... that's a real shame if you ask me. Family friendly films are great and all, but they have a tendency to lack depth. Most Disney films are that way, live action or animated

agreenster
06-22-2006, 09:41 PM
We hear ya Raji, but no need to hate on Pixar so much. Someone else will come along with a good "deep" script and make an animated film from it and possibly reformat animated films in the process (at least in the US). But it wont be Pixar. They will continue to 'wow' and corner the family-friendly market, and I say more power to 'em.

Someone else will do it...in fact, someone probably already IS.

Raji
06-22-2006, 09:47 PM
that's true agreenster... :)

ThomasMahler
06-23-2006, 01:27 AM
We hear ya Raji, but no need to hate on Pixar so much. Someone else will come along with a good "deep" script and make an animated film from it and possibly reformat animated films in the process (at least in the US). But it wont be Pixar. They will continue to 'wow' and corner the family-friendly market, and I say more power to 'em.

Someone else will do it...in fact, someone probably already IS.

Yep.

Also, I don't think that Pixar will continue doing their buddy films forever - they've played a risky card since Toy Story... Toy Story was a success, so why not doing something simliar again. And again. And again? If it works and if people love it - why fix something that ain't broken?

I personally thought that Cars was Pixars worst movie til now - it was the same thing again, but I just didn't buy into this Lightning McQueen character and it just felt like the idea behind it was pretty weak. Nevertheless, I DO think that Pixar has some awesome talents like Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, Brad Bird... Question is if they'll come up with something that doesn't smell and taste like 'Pixar' anymore in the future. A lot of things will change for sure and you can't play it safe all of the time. But we gotta understand that a company like Pixar invests close to 100 Million Dollars into a CG Feature - That's a lot of money and you better not lose it. So Pixar won't be the ones who'll risk it.

I think that other people, smaller studios will be the ones who'll revolutionize animation next - I'd love to see a Chris Landreth-like Film as a feature. Something animation that feels fresh and hasn't been done over and over again. Something non-disney. Something that actually has a well-written, also non disney'ish script. Soemthing that's not mainly marketed to children. We'll see - It has to be a small studio and it has to be a great production for a revolution to happen. The studio that delivers this 'next big hit' will be quite fortunate...

Michael5188
06-23-2006, 01:58 AM
If you don't like family films, don't watch them. We could complain about plenty of live action films that lack depth. I don't know why folks get so worked up about stuff like this, nobody is forcing you to watch these films, and it doesn't hurt you that Pixar is really popular.

mustique
06-23-2006, 08:38 AM
SOUTHPARK RULES! :buttrock:

Teyon
06-23-2006, 12:41 PM
A strong factor for me delaying to see the film (still haven't yet) is that my 7 year old nephew, who's loved every 3D animated film he's seen so far...including some shorts from members at this site, said cars "wasn't funny". This coming from a kid who can walk down a street and tell you the make and model of a car you point at. So if someone his age, who loves cars and loves 3D actually thought it wasn't funny, I'm pretty sure I won't, as I don't care for much for real world cars and it'd take a lot to get me to enjoy a whole movie about those rectangles with wheels. Still, I don't think it's a flop, I mean, it's not as good as the other work they've done in terms of humor I guess but the rest of it I'm sure was up to par. I'm actually looking foward to Monster House, as it brings up memories of scenes from Stephen King's Dark Tower : Wastelands (just the man eating house part). I mean that film looks to have a pretty strong line of comedy to it..."Oh...it's a girl house", I just cracked up when I heard that. So that may be the film to set a new bar that Pixar may want to try to one up, as I'm not sure how their next film will be recieved.

Breinmeester
06-23-2006, 02:22 PM
most live-action flicks don't have depth? What the hell are you watching? Movies like Cheaper by the Dozen 2? The Legend of Zorro? If Pixar's films have so much depth, where are their Saving Private Ryans? Where are their Se7ens? Where are their Gladiators?


Tome it down, dude, no need to get hostile. There are a lot of beautifull live action films with a lot of depth. You haven't even mentioned films like 'Requiem for a Dream' or 'Crash'. Putting depth into animated films to this degree is a lot more difficult because there's the stilisation threshold. But you will have to agree with all these films coming out that considering the ratio of films with depth versus films without depth, more than half of all films has little depth. Therefore I stand by my statement that the average Pixar film has more depth than the average live action flick.

Furthermore, consider how many of the themes you mentioned apply to the live action films with depth you mentioned. There all about humans growing towards eachother and learning a lesson. And frankly I think 'Toy Story' did a far better job at it than 'Saving Private Ryan'.

I saw 'Cars' yesterday and to me my opinion of the film has become quite clear. I think it's a good film with allas less humour than I was expecting or would've liked, but still a solid good film. I however do think that it was a bad decission to make a film about cars as characters. I had my doubts before I saw it and while I saw it there were even more things about this concept that bugged me (If I need to address these details I'm happy to, but for now it would be to off track of what we're talking about and this post would double in length). But still I strongly feel that what they did with the concept was solid story telling.

And this is exactly why, even though their new feature is my second least favourite of theirs after 'A Bug's Life', I'm sticking with Pixar even when there's a slight dip in their streak of hits. 'A Bug's Life' was too much a classical cute charactered Disney movie for me. At the time I thought the concept of 'Antz' was a lot stronger: an animated Woody Allen film with mature designs, gags and themes. But after I had seen them both I had to conclude that Pixar simply did a far better job at the story telling part which resulted in a better film. I truly believe they know the means of turning every concept, even a weak one, into good story telling. To me 'Cars' has prooved that. Now all they need is the guts to take a more mature theme with more at stake. I think in time they will as 'The Incredibles' is far more mature than the rest of all these CG flicks that came out in the last couple of years (including the game geeks oriented Final Fantasy).

My 'presumptuous' remark was about what you predicted the storyline of 'Ratatouille' to be. I don't think it will be a buddy film. I think it will be about a character that wants to move up in class but will come to learn to love what he has got. Sure it's an old theme, but every film has a theme that's been done before. It's what you do with it that counts and I'm sure they'll do beautifully in that department. That teaser trailer at least got me hyped because it looks beautifull, makes me curious, has great characters and has the best character animation I've seen in a trailer yet.

I hope Lasseter and Catmull will try to push Pixar further by making their films more mature in time (and maybe loose the Pixar eyes in one of their coming films) and leave the all ages films for WDFA. Pixar is trying very hard not to keep repeating themselves and is willing to try new ideas. So I think in time they'll be the ones to come with a concept that will renew animated feature films (again!).

P.S. I'm not particularly a fanboy, I just think that the way they go about story telling is the way it should be done.

Njen
06-23-2006, 11:39 PM
Tome it down, dude, no need to get hostile. There are a lot of beautifull live action films with a lot of depth. You haven't even mentioned films like 'Requiem for a Dream' or 'Crash'. Putting depth into animated films to this degree is a lot more difficult because there's the stilisation threshold.

See Jin Roh, a Japanese animation made a few years ago. Simply amazing, with a deep, engrossing story and involving characters.

Breinmeester
06-23-2006, 11:59 PM
I will, thanks for the tip. I also still have to see 'Hotaru No Haka' ('The Grave of the Fire Flies'). I hear it's very amazing too.

shehbahn
06-24-2006, 12:01 AM
>See Jin Roh, a Japanese animation made a few years ago. Simply amazing, with a deep, engrossing story and involving characters.

while it started with a somewhat interesting (boiler plate) premise, it was mostly wasted :
- very poor pacing
- poor camera work : constant breaking of the line of action
- editing that puts shots out of order, breaking the few action sequences into unintelligible mess
- extremely stiff character animation that leaves emotional content in most scenes unintelligible
- cookie cutter characters (to a couple of exceptions)

in short : poor direction.

if you absolutely have to have your anime reference, there are far better picks than this B section title.

edit : Grave of the Fireflies would be one of those picks

Teyon
06-24-2006, 02:09 AM
Grave of the Fireflies rocks. It had such a deeply emotional story and was well driven, though a very sad in tone.

CGTalk Moderation
06-24-2006, 02:09 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.