I love Pixar, but.... [Archive]

kgarner

Nov 1, 2004, 02:56 PM

I think they do it because they make even more money. It is a two fold benefit to them. It promotest he movie and they make money from the sale. So you buy the stuff--MONEY--and you are reminded about the movie and you will remember to go see it--MORE MONEY.

I don't have any evidence on this, but I think George Lucas makes more money of the products and endorsements than he does off the movies. If it could work for him, it could work for Pixar.

And how is this selling out? wouldn't they have to have some statement about the over marketing of society or something for this to be selling out?

MacDawg

Nov 1, 2004, 03:02 PM

I don't have any evidence on this, but I think George Lucas makes more money of the products and endorsements than he does off the movies. If it could work for him, it could work for Pixar.

Lucas makes the royalties off of all of the toys and stuff from SWs, and that is an industry in itself. Not likely that The Incredibles will be THAT successful. :)

Maybe they felt like they needed the extra exposure for the film.

emw

Nov 1, 2004, 03:08 PM

I was at my friend's house the other day, and she was giving my daughter some milk. Nothing strange, except that there was an Incredibles ad on the milk jug. Wow.

But really, I'm not all that surprised. You almost have to do it to maintain awareness. If you look at box office numbers, most movies drop 30-40% the week after release. To maintain momentum, you need to keep the movie in peoples minds.

RBMaraman

Nov 1, 2004, 03:14 PM

Mr. Anderson

Nov 1, 2004, 03:15 PM

Well, why wasn't this happening to all the other Pixar movies - I don't remember Toy Story, Nemo or Monsters Inc. getting all the ads.....just thought it was a bit weird to be happening now.

D

agreenster

Nov 1, 2004, 03:16 PM

Hey, whatever funds future Pixar movies...doesnt bother me.

MacDawg

Nov 1, 2004, 03:18 PM

Usually the weaker the movie, the more the hype, to drive ticket sales. Strong movies don't need as much hype. Just a thought. Although the other Pixar movies have always done well.

macfreek57

Nov 1, 2004, 03:29 PM

~Shard~

Nov 1, 2004, 03:41 PM

Ths type of Marketing tactic does definitely cheapen a movie/company/whatever in my opinion, but it's one of those necessary evils you just have to live with. It's a shame to see Pixar stooping to that level as well, they never had to do that with Nemo, Monsters, etc., but sometimes that's just the way it is. It still won't keep me from seeing the movie though - I'm curious to see how it will stack up against the other Pixar films...

~Shard~

Nov 1, 2004, 03:43 PM

Usually the weaker the movie, the more the hype, to drive ticket sales. Strong movies don't need as much hype. Just a thought.

This is true - case in point with The Matrix (not originally hyped) and Matrix Reloaded (hyped to hell). Throw in the new Star Wars movies as well - hyped excessively, and look at the quality of those films compared to the originals.

Savage Henry

Nov 1, 2004, 03:44 PM

this is the first pixar movie that i've seen previews for and thought "man, that movie will suck."
it really looks like it will not be that funny and the animation doesn't even seem to be on par with their past projects. at best, it's maybe not advancing (think about it, they probably didn't have g5's for finding nemo).

I think I disagree on practically every point, but that's no biggie so I aint looking for flames, just opinion really. Incredibles looks good, to me, but then I like parodies. I couldn't warm to Nemo at all.

For me the Shark Tale promotion has been thown at my face more than Incredibles, and thus I have absolutely no intention of seeing it ....

RBMaraman

Nov 1, 2004, 03:45 PM

Well, why wasn't this happening to all the other Pixar movies - I don't remember Toy Story, Nemo or Monsters Inc. getting all the ads.....just thought it was a bit weird to be happening now.

D

I think it might be because Disney doesn't think the movie will do well. Remember that Eisner told the Disney board that "Finding Nemo" was going to tank, and we all know how that turned out.

I don't think there's more promotion for "The Incredible's" than past Pixar movies. Usually, Disney partners with McDonald's to provide toys for happy meals, and they usually partner with other food distributors as well. I remember a TON of promotion for the "Toy Story" movies. I think you just notice them more now.

agreenster

Nov 1, 2004, 03:57 PM

this is the first pixar movie that i've seen previews for and thought "man, that movie will suck."
it really looks like it will not be that funny and the animation doesn't even seem to be on par with their past projects. at best, it's maybe not advancing (think about it, they probably didn't have g5's for finding nemo).

Wait till you see it. It's the best film Pixar has ever made. Trust me.

Pixar uses Macs and PC's. They'll probably never be an Apple-only studio.

crap freakboy

Nov 1, 2004, 04:07 PM

Because they're a business and all business are lead by greedy bastards who spend their entire lives looking to make more and more $$$$ even when they don't need it?

"POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!"
ahhh my youth... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ilove/years/1977/tvclip.shtml)

PlaceofDis

Nov 1, 2004, 04:12 PM

i doubt the Incredibles will be a weak/bad movie, Disney might think so and thus all the marketing, but i think there is at least one other explanation

all of Pixar's movies were geared towards kids especially, Monsters Inc, Toy Story, Finding Nemo, but i think the inreds is a bit more mature, and they are trying to get more than just kid sales, i think with this movie they want to expand their audience a bit more and thats why there is this heavy advertising, to try and get people to realize its not just a kid film

but hey thats just my two cents.

SilentPanda

Nov 1, 2004, 04:25 PM

In the book "The Second Coming of Steve Jobs" it talks about how nobody new if Toy Story was going to do well at all so there was little, if any marketing done for it (no toys etc). Of course then the movie became super popular and Disney had to create and rush toys to market for parents to buy. Maybe they're just over compensating now...

I haven't seen that much Incredibles stuff myself. I might go see it in the theater if some friends are going or such but otherwise... I'll just buy it on DVD. There are few movies I'll see at the theaters these days anyway. That's why I've purchased a decent home entertainment center, so I don't have to go.

jackieonasses

Nov 1, 2004, 04:25 PM

Over here in the USA they have been on Pringles cans. On every chip it is a "print" of drawing's of them, or questions, here let me read one to you. What special powers does Mr. Incredible have?

Find out nov. 5th!!!! THE SUSPENSE!

GeorgeTheMonkey

Nov 1, 2004, 04:44 PM

Your gripe shouldn't be with Pixar, because they don't have anything to do with the promotions. The distributor does, and we all know who that is:

DISNEY!

That's who's doing all this crap, not Pixar.Allow me to reiterate: this is, in no way, connected to Pixar. Disney is the distributor and, under Pixar-Disney's current negotiated deal, Disney has marketing and promotion rights.

And honestly, I'm saturated in the world of children (I teach preschool), and I can't say that Disney is promoting "The Incredibles" with any more gusto or effort than it did "Monsters Inc." or "Finding Nemo." Film marketing and the promotional industry is, at any rate, an ever-growing industry -- and studios are constantly finding new ways to market films (like the Pringles; the company just discovered over the summer they can print on them, so why not?). You're just seeing new ways of promotion, and "The Incredibles" is simply (and unfortunately) one of the victims of this new "innovation."

Aside from that, I suspect Michael Eisner and the Disney board are getting more and more antsy each and every day over the fact that "The Incredibles" is their second to last film that they'll get out of their incredibly lucrative partnership deal with Pixar. If I was them, I'd be soaking a good thing for all it's worth before it's gone, too.

(But then, if I was on the Disney board, I'd demand that Eisner's retirement could not come soon enough and demand his immediate retirement. :p )

What do I think, at any rate? I think Pixar has an incredibly solid creative team, and I think "The Incredibles" will be a first-rate film -- a product of love, as all of Pixar's films have proven to be. If you'd honestly like to know more of what I think, I always find a film's quality highly suspect when you watch its trailer and they spend more time promoting the celebrity voice-acting and who contributes to the soundtrack than the actual film... ahem *Cough*"Shark Tale"*Cough.*

Macophile

Nov 1, 2004, 04:53 PM

It's Disney, not Pixar. Disney distributes and markets the movies, which is why it was such a boon to Pixar to partner with them early on.

Disney's movies have not been doing well in the last few years. With the exception of the really good "Lilo and Stitch," the only animated movies released by Disney in the last few years that have done "Lion King" and "Aladdin" business have been the Pixar movies.

Pixar has decided that they don't need Disney anymore, that they've built up a sufficient brand name for themselves, and once their current contract comes to an end -- after the release of the next movie, "Cars," I believe -- the two will go their separate ways.

That means that Disney, losing the goose that has been laying its only golden eggs, needs to try and wring every last dime out of this partnership while it lasts. If it means tie-ins with phone companies and laundry detergents in addition to the usual Happy Meal stuff, so be it.

(Pixar probably has some veto power over what products are endorsed, but it's right to assume that their coffers are being filled by these arrangements as well.)

jayscheuerle

Nov 1, 2004, 04:54 PM

It's no biggie. Every movie is promoted more than the last because the promotion is becoming as big as the movie itself.

Disney didn't promote "Home on the Range". They just let it suck ass on its own right.

There is no portent here...

Mr. Anderson

Nov 1, 2004, 05:58 PM

Allow me to reiterate: this is, in no way, connected to Pixar. Disney is the distributor and, under Pixar-Disney's current negotiated deal, Disney has marketing and promotion rights.

That makes more sense and I had forgotten about this - and you're right - Disney's Pixar Money Well will be drying up soon, so they're out to get as much as possible.

Sad it has to happen, but in the end, it really won't affect how well the movie was made :D

Pixar emphasizes the story line more than the animation - so I have no doubt that this movie will do really well. I can't wait to go see it :D

D

agreenster

Nov 1, 2004, 06:15 PM

However, there have been rumors circulating that Stevie J might be taking over for Disney as CEO when Eisner retires...

But those are just rumors, though SJ hasn't denied anything.

KingSleaze

Nov 1, 2004, 06:17 PM

I just got back from the grocery store, where I saw a Kellogg's-Disney/Pixar Incredibles breakfast cereal. Strawberry flavored Incrediberry Blast. Oh, the hype of it all.

MacDawg

Nov 1, 2004, 06:21 PM

However, there have been rumors circulating that Stevie J might be taking over for Disney as CEO when Eisner retires...

But those are just rumors, though SJ hasn't denied anything.

Are you serious??
That would be a kick in the pants for Disney!

Do you have any links for that rumor?

iMeowbot

Nov 1, 2004, 06:23 PM

Well, why wasn't this happening to all the other Pixar movies - I don't remember Toy Story, Nemo or Monsters Inc. getting all the ads.....just thought it was a bit weird to be happening now.
Not Monsters inc. so much, but I definitely remember being inundated with Toy Story promotion and merchandise (especially with the sequel), somewhat less (but still a lot) for Nemo.

Espnetboy3

Nov 1, 2004, 06:23 PM

Macophile

Nov 1, 2004, 08:30 PM

first off if u follow companies and businesses and stocks then you would know that pixar is actually a hurting company for money. I forget exaclty what happened but they just started making money back from toy story like 2 or 3 years ago , something with the contract and the fact that it took and takes a tremendous amount of money for funding these types of animations.

I don't know that they're hurting for money. Their stock goes through wild fluctuations before and after the release of a film, usually going up in anticipation of a hit and then sliding back down when investors realize that the studio doesn't have anything else coming out for another year. After six movies, I think they've learned how to ride that out. But I'd guess that there's some money in the bank and that there's certainly enough to cover production costs.

You're right that Pixar takes a while to make its money back. That's part of the dispute between Jobs and Eisner. Pixar thinks that they've made a mark and that their name means something just as good (if not better) than the Disney brand, and since releasing Pixar movies isn't exactly a risky proposition for Disney anymore, they should recoup more of the money up front . Eisner disagrees. Eisner, however, doesn't exactly have a coherent plan for what to do once the Pixar agreement ends, which is why the Disney board came back with a "no confidence" vote in him as chairman.

All sorts of drama and intrigue, and it's only going to intensify if "The Incredibles" is a huge hit.

wdlove

Nov 1, 2004, 09:32 PM

Your gripe shouldn't be with Pixar, because they don't have anything to do with the promotions. The distributor does, and we all know who that is:

DISNEY!

That's who's doing all this crap, not Pixar.

That was my thought also. Maybe Disney is in some financial difficulties at this point. Eisner may be trying to regain some power.

Mechcozmo

Nov 1, 2004, 10:11 PM

Keep in mind that Pixar had to fork over a lot of the cash to Disney. Disney got the rights to all sequels, etc, so Pixar did not gain a lot off of those movies.

Remember all of the sequels to Disney's movies? They all sucked! Pixar brought in a huge amount of the money for Disney during those times. Home on the Range made me retch. Horrible..... :eek:

agreenster

Nov 1, 2004, 10:34 PM

Are you serious??
That would be a kick in the pants for Disney!

Do you have any links for that rumor?

http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/Forbes-Suggests-Steve-Jobs-as-Disney-CEO-37711.html

absolut_mac

Nov 2, 2004, 12:31 AM

what's with all the sponsorship/endorsement ads for/with the Incredibles...

I've seen one for Yahoo DSL, a laundry detergent, has anyone seen any others?

I really think its sad that Pixar sold out this way so blatantly - its not like they're having trouble making money, why do the product stuff? :rolleyes: :(
D

You're not really surprised are you???

After all, it is only money.

Heck, if you can squeeze a few extra hundred million (maybe even a billion) dollars just by agreeing to a few more licensing deals, wouldn't you do it?

GeorgeTheMonkey

Nov 2, 2004, 02:25 AM

...Eisner disagrees. Eisner, however, doesn't exactly have a coherent plan for what to do once the Pixar agreement ends, which is why the Disney board came back with a "no confidence" vote in him as chairman.

All sorts of drama and intrigue, and it's only going to intensify if "The Incredibles" is a huge hit.Oh, hehe, I'm quite positive there's more to the misgivings of Michael Eisner than just his botched mis-deal with Pixar. There's so many reasons to give a "no confidence" vote in him... dagnnubbed thing he got to keep his CEO title, though.

(Is it also of any surprise that Eisner recently lost the contract Disney had with Bob and Harvey Weinstein's Miramax Films as well?)

Eisner's management has continued to degrade and fail since the early 1990s; in fact, you can almost directly trace Disney's fall with Eisner's firings of key creative personnel. Those were, I'd consider, probably his biggest mistakes. As he scaled back the roles of Roy Disney, Walt's cousin, and other creative personnel like Ron Clements (and even Jeffrey Katzenberg) and instead took more creative control himself (and/or sacrificed it for the cheap buck), the Disney Company simply went down the tube.

If you're really interested in the Disney history, and where, perhaps, things might've gone wrong, I'd encourage you to read this series (http://www.savedisney.com/news/features/fe090704.1.asp) of articles, over at SaveDisney.com (http://www.savedisney.com).

At any rate, I think you're right, Macophile -- Pixar seems to be a quite solid company, even if it takes 'em a while to recoup their finances after a film. They might not be riding on the Wall Street wave, like DreamWorks is right now, but they know what it takes to make a good film or two and be well off financially. Steve runs it exactly like he runs Apple, I think: if you take your time, develop a good product and then put it out, people will buy.

jayscheuerle

Nov 2, 2004, 08:46 AM

The source is merely someone who thinks the pairing makes sense, but what in the world could it offer to Jobs, who is running two immensely successful companies right now?

All Disney is trying to do is to make itself more like Pixar these days. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever for Jobs to do this...

Palad1

Nov 2, 2004, 09:15 AM

Hey, whatever funds future Pixar movies...doesnt bother me.
I bet you are more bothered by whom Pixar movies fund ;)

How's the new job going?

RBMaraman

Nov 2, 2004, 09:36 AM

http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/Forbes-Suggests-Steve-Jobs-as-Disney-CEO-37711.html

Disney already announced that the new CEO is going to be picked from within the Disney Co., not from outside. They announced that the same day Eisner announced his retirement. So, no chance of SJ getting the job.

Mr. Anderson

Nov 2, 2004, 09:41 AM

Heck, if you can squeeze a few extra hundred million (maybe even a billion) dollars just by agreeing to a few more licensing deals, wouldn't you do it?

I really don't know - I'm still a little idealistic at the moment about what should and shouldn't be done.

Look at it this way - why do animated film characters find their way into commercials, yet you see very few or significantly less of real stars representing their movie roles in commercials.

There are a lot of ancillary merchandize available for things like Harry Potter (action figures, Lego sets, etc.) but its not product endorsement. These are things that kids play with, want to collect. Having Harry Potter tell me to sign up for Hogwart's Magically Hi-Speed Internet would be a little much. Does that distinction make any sense?

D

jaw04005

Nov 2, 2004, 09:46 AM

Well, why wasn't this happening to all the other Pixar movies - I don't remember Toy Story, Nemo or Monsters Inc. getting all the ads.....just thought it was a bit weird to be happening now.

D

They did "promotions" too, McDonald's used Toy Story & Bug's Life to promote and sell Happy Meals. My little cousin has a bag full of Toy Story and Bug's Life toys from McDonalds. Same thing with SBC.

Keep in mind Pixar used to make commercials. I don't really understand what the big fuss is about, it takes marketing and promotion to make a product profitable, why wouldn't Disney/Pixar promote Incredibles?

Mantat

Nov 2, 2004, 09:56 AM

Pixar uses Macs and PC's. They'll probably never be an Apple-only studio.

Have visited Pixar so say such a thing?

All office computers are macs. Every 3D workstation is a linux pc and they will probably switch to G5 the day pro level 3D card are availlable to the mac (if ever). Render nodes are switching to G5 cluster node.

So its clear to me that they simply want to use the best tool for the job, when ever the G5 can model with gazillions of poly, they will throw the linux machine out the window.

iMeowbot

Nov 2, 2004, 09:56 AM

Look at it this way - why do animated film characters find their way into commercials, yet you see very few or significantly less of real stars representing their movie roles in commercials.
The cartoon characters work for less :)

There are a lot of ancillary merchandize available for things like Harry Potter (action figures, Lego sets, etc.) but its not product endorsement.
And fast food promotions and so on too...

One difference with The Incredibles is that it's more aimed toward older viewers than the most Pixar films are. A nearby bank (Old Stone in Rhode Island) used to have Fred Flintsone as their spokescharacter, and Bugs Bunny used to do ads for MCI. And it's the same general idea, those aren't really "kid characters." Seen that way, the current merchandising wave doesn't lok all that unusual.

agreenster

Nov 2, 2004, 10:05 AM

Have visited Pixar so say such a thing?

I have never been to Pixar but I have several animator friends who work there, and they just have a mixed shop of computers.

GeorgeTheMonkey

Nov 2, 2004, 12:57 PM

Disney already announced that the new CEO is going to be picked from within the Disney Co., not from outside. They announced that the same day Eisner announced his retirement. So, no chance of SJ getting the job.Sure, Eisner announced that he's going to nominate suitable successors to the board and it will be, in large part, completely in-house (without a doubt, Eisner's croney Bob Iger is going to be at the top of the list) -- but his resignation is still more than a year-and-a-half-away, and a year-and-a-half is a long time for Roy Disney to work his magic.

Roy can still get Eisner ousted as CEO earlier (oh, wouldn't that be a delight? Poor Mikey wouldn't get his retirement pension!), or at the very least foil his attempts at implanting a hand-picked successor. There's still a great chance Roy can bust open the whole CEO nomination bag. And from the looks of it, Roy certainly doesn't mind the idea of Steve Jobs being the one to take the crown.

(But then, as jayscheuerle mentioned, even I'm hardpressed to see benefits of such a deal for Jobs; if he were to, it certainly wouldn't be for any financial reason... he'd just have to be a big Walt Disney fan. :D )

~Shard~

Nov 2, 2004, 01:55 PM

(But then, as jayscheuerle mentioned, even I'm hardpressed to see benefits of such a deal for Jobs; if he were to, it certainly wouldn't be for any financial reason... he'd just have to be a big Walt Disney fan. :D )

I agree, I don't really see any reason for Jobs to become the CEO of Disney as well - I think he's busy enough as it is! After all, there are countless companies Jobs would be an excellent CEO for, that doesn't mean he should take on all of them. ;)

makisushi

Nov 2, 2004, 02:02 PM

Because they're a business and all business are lead by greedy bastards who spend their entire lives looking to make more and more $$$$ even when they don't need it?

But that is what makes the world go 'round. lol

Why should someone be faulted for being monitarily successful?

Jovian9

Nov 2, 2004, 03:25 PM

A pop-culture movie deserves pop-culture hype/treatment. That's the way it goes.
Now if this were to happen to an art film, or a film by a great director....there would be reason to complain about selling out. But this is movie-entertainment not movie-art. Lots of children are going to see this....so the marketing methods are there to make sure the children see the ads and bug the parents to go......and the parents will take them.
On the Star Wars issue......Lucas is not a good director. Therefore he needs the hype for Episodes 1-3.

Perhaps instead of blaming Pixar or Disney for the ridiculous marketing hype they are putting behind this (or any of the big movies, MTV musicians, etc.).....the blame should be put on the millions who cannot think for themselves and do whatever their told by these marketing campaigns (or buy what's constantly pounded into their heads by TV or Radio).

Royal Pineapple

Nov 2, 2004, 07:36 PM

Well, why wasn't this happening to all the other Pixar movies - I don't remember Toy Story, Nemo or Monsters Inc. getting all the ads.....just thought it was a bit weird to be happening now.

D
in my photo class we took pictures of a bowl of cereal, it was froot loops, and had the monsters inc characters on the box, aswell as a monsters inc toy inside

toy story and MI and even FN i think all had deals with

however i saw an incredibles billboard promoting some sort of "yahoo SBC high speed internet" thing,