erik lundegaard

Betting Against Pixar

Do I have the energy on this Monday, when dozens are dead from an earthquake in Italy, to get worked up over the state of the movie world? Not even the movie world, really, but the business side of the movie world? Yeah, those guys.

First New York Times writer Brooks Barnes pats Universal Studios on the back for both “Fast & Furious,” which made $72 million over the weekend, and for reviving the “Hellboy” franchise last summer, which, Barnes writes, the studio turned “into a hit after Sony Pictures Entertainment passed on making a sequel.” Apparently Barnes forgot the role Guillermo del Toro played. At the same time, his use of the term “hit” may be a slight exaggeration. Yes, the film made $34 million its opening weekend. Then it dropped off 70 percent and struggled to make $75 million. Nothing to sneeze at, but, in Hollywood terms, is that a “hit”? For a superhero film?

Richard Greenfield wouldn’t think so. In the Business section of the paper, Barnes (back again) writes how Greenfield’s firm, Pali Research, recently downgraded Disney shares because of — get this — a poor outlook for the next Pixar movie.

Whoa. So is the Pixar movie, “Up,” screening poorly? No. It’s screening extremely well.

Pali has a problem with the lead, an old man voiced by Ed Asner: “‘We doubt younger boys will be that excited by the main character,’ Greenfield wrote, adding a complaint about the lack of a female lead.”

Others pile on. “'The worries keep coming despite Pixar’s track record, because each film it delivers seems to be less commercial than the last,' said Doug Creutz of Cowen and Company."

Barnes then looks at said commerciality of Pixar’s films and agrees. Compared with the $405 million “Finding Nemo” made in 2003, he writes:

Pixar’s last two films, “Wall-E” and “Ratatouille,” have been the studio’s two worst performers, delivering sales of $224 million and $216 million respectively, according to Box Office Mojo, a tracking service.

Well, yes and no. Actually, no and no.

According to box office mojo, a tracking service, “Nemo” made $339 million domestically. The $405 million figure? Apparently that’s in all of North America. So Barnes isn’t even comparing similar box office totals.

Still, if you look at unadjusted domestic box office, yes, it appears Pixar, while still doing great business, isn't doing as well as it used to:

1.  Finding Nemo  $309M  2003 
2.  The Incredibles  $261M  2004 
3.  Monsters, Inc.  $255M  2001 
4.  Toy Story 2 $245M  1999 
5.  Cars  $244M  2006 
6.  WALL-E  $223M  2008
7.  Ratatouille  $206M  2007 
8.  Toy Story  $191M  1995 
9.  A Bug's Life $162M  1998 


The last two Pixar films are stuck there at sixth and seventh, and the only reason they’re not at the bottom is because we’re not adjusting for inflation.

But that’s domestically. Other countries see films, too, right? So what does the worldwide gross of Pixar films look like? Here:

1.  Finding Nemo  $864M  2003 
2.  The Incredibles  $631M  2004 
3.  Ratatouille  $621M  2007 
4.  WALL-E  $534M  2008 
5.  Monsters, Inc.  $525M  2001 
6.  Toy Story 2 $485M  1999 
7.  Cars  $461M  2006 
8.  A Bug's Life  $363M  1998 
9.  Toy Story  $362M  1995 

Now Pixar’s two most recent entries rank third and fourth. Hardly "each less commercial than the last."

Forget for a moment that a financial services firm thinks it’s in a situation to basically pass notes to the most successful movie studio of the past 10 years. Even within the narrow parameters in which these guys are talking — the business side of things — they don’t know what they’re talking about. How awful is that?

On the plus side, these guys did make me excited to see "Up." Opening weekend.


Posted at 02:31 PM on Mon. Apr 06, 2009 in category Movies - Box Office, Pixar  
No tags

COMMENTS

Mister B wrote:

Geez, these guys are idiots! Who else are they going to get to voice the old man character? Shia LeBeouf? Zac Efron?

I'm just glad Pixar -- so far -- has resisted the temptation to make money (or write film plots) just to sell action figures.

Yes, there's a lot of Pixar stuff out there in Disney stores, but Pixar doesn't seem to make up characters for their movies just to sell toys.

*cough* Jar Jar Binks *cough*

*cough* Three movie prequels *cough*
Comment posted on Mon. Apr 06, 2009 at 04:38 PM

Hopscotch wrote:

Daivd Poland's Hot Blog ran a similar reaction. And I concur, this is lazy reporting and frankly kind of absurd to cough at those two films grosses. If he were to compare the grosses to Dreamwork's animated films, that perhaps would make a bit more sense.

And that #1 highest grossing Pixar movie's lead voice was Albert Brooks. Don't get more "down with the kids" when you have Albert Brooks in the lead.
Comment posted on Mon. Apr 06, 2009 at 05:02 PM

You may bypass the ID fields and security question below if you log in before commenting.


 
 





Receive notification of further comments via e-mail

« Opening Day   |   Home   |   Presidential Quote of the Day »
 RSS    Facebook

Twitter: @ErikLundegaard

ARCHIVES

All previous entries

LINKS
Movies
Hollywood Elsewhere
The Film Experience
Roger Ebert
Baseball
Joe Posnanski
Rob Neyer
Cardboard Gods
Politics
Andrew Sullivan
Alex Pareene
Friends
Jerry Grillo
Jim Walsh
dative-querulous