CGTalk - Warner's Wooing Pixar

Slurry

10-07-2003, 09:15 AM

Good point. Iron Giant is fantastic and should have done better in the box office.
Same with Bluth's Titan AE (imho) but I believe that was Fox responsible for marketing and distribution.
Disney does know marketing but do you think that Pixar's reputation is enough to keep doing well without Disney's label attached to it?
Many of my non-industry friends still think that Pixar and Disney are the same entity.

Slurry

zzacmann

10-07-2003, 09:25 AM

IMO, Iron Giant was an example of how combining 2D and 3D can work well and add to the story.

Titan AE was an example of how combining 2D and 3D can be crappy. Okay story, but the effects were there for the sake of effects and not for the sake of the story.

As for Pixar, Im glad theyre out from under Disney's thumb. Disney didnt treat them very well (ie: Toy Story I and Toy Story II count as one movie in their 5 movie contract, give me a break). If Disney treated Pixar like the only money maker they've got, which they are, maybe Pixar would consider making them some more money. Disneys just got its head up its own @$$.

Slurry

10-07-2003, 09:41 AM

zzacmann,

I just thought Titan AE should have did better than it did at the BO. I'm a fan of a lot of Don Bluth's stuff and I thought it was a pretty good story and was well animated. Very non-Disney in terms of making a formulaic animated feature.
The CG/2D blend could be up for debate. I didn't mind it so much (maybe since it was a sci-fi film?) If anything I thought the metal songs were a little cheesey.
But I agree that Iron Giant did CG/2D extremely well.
But who is to say how Pixar would have faired without the Disney marketing juggernaut behind them for the early films? We'll never know.

:beer:

Slick

10-07-2003, 11:10 AM

I hope one day Pixar has enough money to market its own movies and not have to depend on anyone. THey deserve all the money they can get for putting out such awesome films. I wonder too if they'd be so bold as to make a 2d film one day inspite of all the 3d hype, just to show that its not the technology that makes a film succesful its the strong develpment of characters and story. But I'm sure if they did it would yet again push the style of filmmaking in a new direction.

slick

PhilOsirus

10-07-2003, 03:40 PM

I don't see how Titan AE and Iron Giant could have been more popular. Iron Giant had a small cast of two actual main characters, one of which was errm very silent. It makes the movie feel "smaller" even in the commercials. It's not a bad aspect of the movie, but I think it was not the kind of movie that could have attracted much more people than it did.

As for Titan AE, its story was too serious, therefore it attracted mostly an older crowd, and there isn't a huge older crowd for those kind of animated movies.

I don't see any reason why WB could not market Pixar's movies as well. 80% of the marketing IMO is done with the previews, the rest is just keeping the image present in people's head throuhg related products.

onlooker

10-07-2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Slick
I hope one day Pixar has enough money to market its own movies and not have to depend on anyone. THey deserve all the money they can get for putting out such awesome films. I wonder too if they'd be so bold as to make a 2d film one day inspite of all the 3d hype, just to show that its not the technology that makes a film succesful its the strong develpment of characters and story. But I'm sure if they did it would yet again push the style of filmmaking in a new direction.

slick

Did you know the voice for the Iron Giant was Vin Diesel?

My Fault

10-07-2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Phil "Osirus"
I don't see any reason why WB could not market Pixar's movies as well. 80% of the marketing IMO is done with the previews, the rest is just keeping the image present in people's head throuhg related products.

How can you even say that? Warner's track record so far for marketing animated films has been beyond awful. "Cat's Don't Dance", "Iron Giant"... feh, they killed those films. Ancillary products are one of the powerful ways to market and something Warner's sucks peach pits at, and Disney rules at. It will be interesting to see how the Warner marketing monkeys do with the new Looney Tunes flick, which is actually getting some good early reviews.

Bitch about Disney all you want, but no one can market like they can. Plus the fact that they have been very hands off with Pixar only offering their support and experience. Lasseter has spoken many times how Disney's story guys have helped them get out of jams and hitches in their stories and characters. Remember, Disney exec's may be blowhard aholes, but their creative folks are some of the best in the biz. I swear if Disney would just fire 22 of their 24 (at last count) animation vp's, things could start improving.

Array

10-07-2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Phil "Osirus"

I don't see any reason why WB could not market Pixar's movies as well. 80% of the marketing IMO is done with the previews, the rest is just keeping the image present in people's head throuhg related products.

You forgot how Disney manages to saturate the market with their franchises. McDonald's/Burger King toys, video games, t shirts, bed sheets, etc etc etc

Slurry

10-07-2003, 07:53 PM

And the Disney Machine is pretty good at releasing new films and using there marketing power of re-releasing classic films on video and DVD the same time that their competitors are releasing their features in an effort to squash excitement.

They enjoy cornering the market and if they aren't Pixar's friend they will most likely be an enemy.

malducin

10-07-2003, 08:12 PM

You forgot how Disney manages to saturate the market with their franchises.

Although that should be less of an issue now since there was an news story a few months ago that Pixar was assembling their own marketing team to do all the merchandising and products and all that stuff. I'm pretty sure it was posted here.

Maybe Warner has fumbled their animated films of late, but they could use maybe the film marketing people (after all they got Harry Potter experience which more or less would cater to the same crowd).

agreenster

10-07-2003, 08:50 PM

I jusy hope Pixar and Disney can come to an agreement. They've done SO well the last few years that it would be silly for them to split. Re-negotiate to get Pixar more of the profits? Sure. Split? No.

If it aint broke....

Array

10-07-2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by agreenster
I jusy hope Pixar and Disney can come to an agreement. They've done SO well the last few years that it would be silly for them to split. Re-negotiate to get Pixar more of the profits? Sure. Split? No.

If it aint broke....

I have confidance in Steve Jobbs no matter which road he points pixar to.

PhilOsirus

10-07-2003, 11:21 PM

It will be interesting to see how the Warner marketing monkeys do with the new Looney Tunes flick, which is actually getting some good early reviews.

Actually I find this to be again the kind of animated movie that just can't really make a lot of money, and again I don't see how it will be WB's fault. I think any Pixar movie like those we have seen recently can get as many seats full in theaters, it's just how much money they make outside the theaters that is another story.

tredeger

10-07-2003, 11:48 PM

Such speculation seems to miss a few important points:

Pixar probably does have enough cash on hand to pay for their own distribution--but it involves much more than cash. Lucas distribs the SW films through FOX. And FOX and the theaters accept truly unfavorable terms for the rights (the theaters for instance give up a percentage of concession revenues and make gaurantees to show the flick on the largest screens for X number of weeks.

That being the case, Pixar should be able to get a better deal than they currently have with whomever they go, Disney or not. They have something they didn't have back when Toy Story broke new ground: a track record. Remember, Disney took a chance with TS.

The distributor relationship isn't just marketing-- Disney support extends to a degree into the creative process as well.

Marketing itself is non-trivial and with a Pixar type film involves all the ancillary revenues such as toys, food tie-ins, under-roos, etc.

BUT in terms of the straight forward advertising driving box office I think the speculation that warner bros. would fail is based on faulty logic. Comparing the track record of Iron Giant to the Pixar films isn't quite right. Very different sorts of films. Pixar films can serve as a tentpole for a studio and will be treated as such. IG never would garner such attention. And WB has done quite well with its recent tentpoles. Anyone remember that little franchise about the kid who goes to Hogwart's?

And attributing box office to the Disney marketing machine seems to ignore the recent Disney track record with it's own animated films. I personally liked Treasure Planet but it was *heavily* promoted by Disney and tanked. I can't really remember the last Disney smash.

Just a few thoughts.

Cheers.

My Fault

10-07-2003, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Phil "Osirus"
Actually I find this to be again the kind of animated movie that just can't really make a lot of money, and again I don't see how it will be WB's fault. I think any Pixar movie like those we have seen recently can get as many seats full in theaters, it's just how much money they make outside the theaters that is another story.

How do you know if your interested in seeing a certain film if you don't know it's ever been made and when and if it is playing? How many people will see a film that opens in 500 theatres compared to one that open to 3,000? These rely on marketing and distribution, two things that Warner's has had zero success with as it relates to animated films. They could be the greatest films ever made but without support from marketing and distribution, people will not see these films.

While I agree the kind of animated film does have something to do with it, it is only one piece of the puzzle and that piece is the part Pixar is doing. The other pieces would be picked up by, in this case, Warner Brothers, and they SUCK at it. What would be in it for Pixar to work with someone that is lousy at the thing they are being hired for?

My Fault

10-08-2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by tredeger
BUT in terms of the straight forward advertising driving box office I think the speculation that warner bros. would fail is based on faulty logic. Comparing the track record of Iron Giant to the Pixar films isn't quite right. Very different sorts of films. Pixar films can serve as a tentpole for a studio and will be treated as such. IG never would garner such attention. And WB has done quite well with its recent tentpoles. Anyone remember that little franchise about the kid who goes to Hogwart's?

In the end it is ALL speculation. Warner's would obviously have a much easier time marketing a Pixar film now then they would have in the beginning. The question will be what can they do for Pixar today that Disney can not. Disney has had some failures with their animated films, Warner Brothers has had nothing but failures. Will they work harder for Pixar, yes, but they still have to prove they can do it where Disney already has.

And to say that they did well with Harry Potter is fairly faulty. Harry Potter has one of the largest fan bases around and quite frankly anyone would've suceeded with it.

SheepFactory

10-08-2003, 04:44 AM

you guys must be forgetting that warner owns new line too.

Lotr and matrix anyone?

I hope pixar goes with someone else , One more nail for the coffin of mr "I killed the disney empire" Eisner.

My Fault

10-08-2003, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Sheep Factory
you guys must be forgetting that warner owns new line too.

Lotr and matrix anyone?

I hope pixar goes with someone else , One more nail for the coffin of mr "I killed the disney empire" Eisner.

This is the best reason for Pixar to go elsewhere, Eisner needs to go down!

And I'm not forgetting about LoTR or The Matrix, but they don't count. I'm only questioning Warner's abilities as it relates to "animated" films and the corporate culture that has made them so incompetent in marketing them. Pixar may be different, but the higher ups have zero respect for animated films and it shows.

zzacmann

10-08-2003, 06:53 AM

I don't remember Warner Brothers being so incompetant when distributing Space Jam.

Luddy

10-08-2003, 07:56 AM

I can't see Pixar wanting to use snapper cases. :hmm:

My Fault

10-08-2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Luddy
I can't see Pixar wanting to use snapper cases. :hmm:

Hahaha, just say no to snappers! :p

Stahlberg

10-08-2003, 10:38 AM

The comment about having Disney as an enemy is especially interesting, in view of how Disney Feature Animation is moving away from 2d into 3d. Their first full 3d feature, whenever it comes and whatever it may be, will most likely be competing against something very similar from Pixar - if Pixar is not in the Disney fold then, it will be WAR...

btw what the h*ll is snapper cases?

slaughters

10-08-2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Array
I have confidance in Steve Jobbs... Yes, why just look how much of the market is saturated with Mac's now-a-days.

PhilOsirus

10-08-2003, 06:54 PM

There seems to be this idea that WB has been unable to promote animated movies correctly, but just because Iron Giant was no a smash it does not mean it could have been otherwise under any other distribution. I don't see how it could have really filled more seats than recent Disney animated movies that were not 3D. Quite frankly, I think a lot is taken out of consideration to make that claim anyway.

But in the end it does not matter if it is WB that distributes their movies (I'd rather see someone else entirely, if not Pixar themselves). The reason Pixar needs to leave Disney is to be able to bring about their own terms this time, instead of negotiating the terms of their "owners" and also force Disney to adapt and change. It will bring more competition, more movies, more jobs for us, etc.

Slurry

10-08-2003, 07:17 PM

The difference being that Disney DID market their last few films and they failed and that WB DID NOT market Iron Giant adequately (popular belief anyway) and it failed.
So if Iron Giant was a great movie, the film itself cannot be blamed for it's box office failure. I think that is why people are questioning WB competance. Are there other factors as you suggest? Most definately.

The other difference is that Iron Giant is generally acknowledged to be a great (and underrated) animated film while the recent Disney fare has been lacking.

That being said, I think Pixar has made a big enough name for themselves that they probably could part from Disney and still be (as) successful.

gKay

10-08-2003, 07:27 PM

Warning: OffTopic <g>

IronGiant is a wonderfull movie, but I don't think it failed on box office 'cause of a bad marketing (which just affects the opening weekend anyway).

IronGiant had a very subtle and intelligent story, which reflects the superb book by Ted Hughes: The Robot is a threat, capable of destroying earth and is fought by us military and nuclear weapons!?!? This just isn't the story most people go to see with their kids! The story is emotionally too complex .. at least for younger kids. So, IronGiant had no fitting target audience...

But that's just my opinion (I'm still waiting for my son growing up: in a year or two i may be able to watch the dvd with him :applause: )

And as for pixar: Probably they'll stuck with disney because they have learned a lot of 'em. Would Pixar be so successfull if they did not joined forces with disney?

SheepFactory

10-08-2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by gKay
Would Pixar be so successfull if they did not joined forces with disney?

There is a flip side to that , Would disney be as successful today if they havent joined forces with Pixar?

My Fault

10-08-2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by gKay
IronGiant is a wonderfull movie, but I don't think it failed on box office 'cause of a bad marketing (which just affects the opening weekend anyway).

We'll never know for sure. The few things we do know are that the film didn't open in many theatres and that many major markets received zero coverage. If joe sixpack doesn't know a film is opening they can't go to see it opening weekend to have a chance to spread any word of mouth. Poor marketing can kill a great film as badly as it can a bad film.

In the end it could be worse, Arnold Schwarzennegger could be governor of California.....oh crap! :eek:

gKay

10-08-2003, 08:10 PM

> Would disney be as successful today if they havent joined forces with Pixar?

Probably even more successfull, 'cause they probably would have to face the competition of jobs/pixar which is always productive ... :rolleyes:

:: My Fault

Actually the marketing here in europe wasn't that bad at all (at least for a non-pixar-disney-animated-movie), but the movie didn't made very good either... But most likely it's a mix of both ...

> Arnold Schwarzennegger could be governor of California.....

:buttrock: you americans are a bunch of funny guys... ;)

Slurry

10-08-2003, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Sheep Factory
There is a flip side to that , Would disney be as successful today if they havent joined forces with Pixar?

I think after being around for 70+ years Disney has earned it's stripes.
Let's not take away what Disney has accomplished pre-Pixar.
:beer:

SheepFactory

10-08-2003, 10:29 PM

of course not , I have the highest respect for the artists at disney.

Just saying what makes disney money lately is pixar and not their own films.

Slurry

10-08-2003, 10:41 PM

Very True!

:beer:

My Fault

10-09-2003, 04:21 AM

Hmmm, so evidently a deal between Disney and Pixar is imminent. I'm curious to see how much Pixar will get out of this deal..... hopefully a lot!

zzacmann

10-09-2003, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Sheep Factory
There is a flip side to that , Would disney be as successful today if they havent joined forces with Pixar?

Don't forget, the last Disney feature to make any money was "The Lion King", and the one before that "Beauty and the Beast" and the one before that "The Little Mermaid". Those movies are few and far apart. There are many movies in between that, although critically successful, failed at the box office.

TheGreenGiant

10-09-2003, 08:09 AM

what's this strange debate about marketing about? Pixar has all the marketing powarH it needs

"blah blah..

presents

a PIXAR ANIMATED FILM"

= seat on bum

and that's the fact. Disney never really even gets associated with the films and without that mindshare, they are powerless. They just lose that fat paycheck from dvd and movie sales.

gKay

10-09-2003, 08:14 AM

For me, i'll miss the cool disney castle logo which runs right before the pixar logo... <sigh>

Oh! look! it's already burned in my retina... Lucky me! :p

danteort

10-09-2003, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by zzacmann
Don't forget, the last Disney feature to make any money was "The Lion King", and the one before that "Beauty and the Beast" and the one before that "The Little Mermaid". Those movies are few and far apart. There are many movies in between that, although critically successful, failed at the box office.
Umm, Beauty and the Beast directly followed The Little Mermaid. Then came Aladin, and next The Lion King. That's not exactly "few and far between."

Their more recent stuff, yes, has been less successful at the box office.

danteort

10-09-2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by TheGreenGiant
Disney never really even gets associated with the films and without that mindshare, they are powerless. They just lose that fat paycheck from dvd and movie sales.
Disney certainly DOES get associated with Pixar films. You're assuming that the general public knows the ins and outs of who makes what. The first thing they see when they watch Pixar's films is Disney's logo. Plus all the merchandise in the Disney stores. You can't tell me that the general public immediately seperates Disney and Pixar.

Obviously all Pixar has to do is say "From the Academy Award winning creators of Toy Story, Monster's Inc., and Finding Nemo..." and they'll fill the seats. But just saying "From Pixar Animation Studios..." might not get as many people's attention.

PhilOsirus

10-10-2003, 01:06 AM

Actually I see a lot people that think of Toy Story as a Disney movie and Monsters Inc and Finding Nemo as Pixar movies, so to me the trend is demonstrating that Pixar is being recognized much more by the avarage movie goer than Disney for anything Pixar released. Of course there is the Disney logo, but the distinction is becoming more prominent in people's head.

EDIT: Oh and I was watching the Deep Dive clip from Kingdom Hearts again. Wouldn't it be the greatest thing ever if Disney and Squaresoft made the Kingdom Hearts movie? It would be about time we see Mickey and the gang in full 3D:)

CIM

10-10-2003, 02:13 AM

Looks like Pixar is going to stick with Disney for at least a few more years (heard on the news).

Stahlberg

10-10-2003, 04:50 AM

Yeah, they'd both be idiots to separate, Disney needs the cashflow and Pixar can't make Monsters Inc 2 without Disney's permission...

And again, I ask: what is 'snapper cases'?

Luddy

10-10-2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Stahlberg

what is 'snapper cases'?

There are two types of DVD cases. Warner and New Line 'like' to use snapper DVD cases(ex. Matrix DVD). "Snappers" are made of cardboard, "snap" open, and sit awkwardly next to normal plastic DVD cases (ex. Toy Story DVD). So the majority of DVD's owned are in plastic cases, while Warner has continued to use its inferior snappers for the past couple of years. :D

zzacmann

10-10-2003, 08:52 AM

I like the "snapper" cases. They feel so old school to me.

I dont understand these kids today with their rock and/or roll music and their plastic DVD cases, and what not.

In my day, when the first Matrix movie just came out on DVD, we all had snapper cases. Sure when we spilled something wet on them they would swell up and turn to pulp. But thats how it was, and thats how we liked it damn it.

malducin

10-10-2003, 08:06 PM

What would be interesting is if Pixar does what Lucas did: buy the rights back from the studio. Take back control of Toy Story, Bugs, Nemo and Monsters.

Gentle Fury

10-11-2003, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by zzacmann
Don't forget, the last Disney feature to make any money was "The Lion King", and the one before that "Beauty and the Beast" and the one before that "The Little Mermaid". Those movies are few and far apart. There are many movies in between that, although critically successful, failed at the box office.

hmmmm, all Katzenberg directed........funny how the most successful disney director of all times could branch into his own company and produce some of the least successful animated films.........(can we say sinbad?)

So far it seems that shrek has been it on the dreamworks animation end that has really done anything........what happened jeff??

My Fault

10-11-2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Gentle Fury
hmmmm, all Katzenberg directed........funny how the most successful disney director of all times could branch into his own company and produce some of the least successful animated films.........(can we say sinbad?)

What are you talking about, Katzenberg didn't direct any of those films.

malducin

10-11-2003, 08:33 AM

Besides there were 2 semi independent divisions, PDI which did Shrek and Antz and Dreamworks animation which the the more traditonal animated films.

Only Sinbad was a big flop. Antz was a solid hit and so was Prince of Egypt. Even Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron was a moderate hit.

As far as least successful Sinbad is just as comparable to Treasure Planet which cost something like 140 million. Both companies have had their string of hits and flops.