Originally Posted By DlandDug Over in the box office thread some interesting observations were made about Pixar films and their after market profitablity. Since that wasn't really the discussion topic over there (which alternates between nerdy number crunching and chest thumping over box office receipts), I am starting a new thread to discuss this topic over here. All kidding aside, it's a compelling subject (which will probably alternate between nerdy number crunching and chest thumping over merchandising receipts). This is the statement I wanted to address: >>It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why sequels are being made of Toy Story, Cars, and now Monsters. It's all about pre-sold franchises which do gangbuster business in the aftermarket. And these three film franchises are HUGE revenue generators regarding toys.<< So much to chew over. First off, I think that using Toy Story and Cars is a really bad choice for this thesis. Monsters, Inc, too, but for completely different reasons. I haven't really ever paid much attention to the marketing revenue from Monsters, Inc. Anyone have hard figures? Is Monsters, Inc. really a marketing bonanza? If so, I stand corrected. Toy Story became a marketing phenom despite an incredible amount of opposition. When the first film was introduced, nobody at Disney had any faith in the merchandising. At least, it sure seemed that way, what with a single small toy company (Thinkway) producing a limited run of a few toys the first Christmas season. Toy Story 2, on the other hand, was rolled out as if it WERE Christmas. Overkill, in my opinion, but the toys did quite well, and the franchise is firmly set in place. But is it Disney's insatiable demand to sell toys that is driving Toy Story 3? Has Pixar sold their sould to their corporate masters? Have Buzz, Woody and the gang been put to work in a Chinese sweat shop? (Cue dramatic stinger...!) Actually, the whole Toy Story sequel saga has been hashed and rehashed so many times, it's hard to know what the whole truth is. But this much we do know. Toy Story 2 was a big part of the original friction that developed between Pixar and Disney. (Or rather, Pixar and Michael Eisner.) It seems that Mr. Eisner felt that TS2 was not to be counted in Pixar's original agreement covering five films. He insisted that Disney owned the theatrical rights not only to Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc., and Finding Nemo, but the next film (The Incredibles) as well. Pixar cried foul, and the whole thing became increasingly contentious. Worse yet, Toy Story 3 turned into a bargaining chip. You see, Pixar loved Woody and the gang so much, they actually had projected a trilogy. (Details of the third film have been floating around the internet for years.) It was not Disney, but Pixar's creative team itself that wanted to continue Toy Story beyond the original film. Since Disney essentially owned the rights to use the characters of "their" Pixar films, they began developing their own Toy STory 3. Yep, the team who brought us Dinosaur, Chicken Little, and Meet the Robinsons were going to wield creative control over the final disposition of Pixar's beloved Andy's Room gang. Long story short (too late!), Bob Iger negotiated an agreement, Pixar and Disney became a team (sort of, as Henry might say), and the Disney-led Toy Story 3 effort was disbanded. Pixar's Toy Story 3 was most emphatically not developed on the basis of simply selling stuff. It certainly will sell stuff, but the poignant tale of what happens to toys after their owner (Andy) outgrows them is a logical finale to a wonderful story. A toy story! (And it will move a LOT of toys, incidently. And I do mean incidently.) Cars is a whole other kind of toy story. I will save that for the next post.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Cars is almost certainly John Lasseter's most personal film. His father was an auto dealer, Lasseter has become a major NASCAR fan, and a Lasseter family trip across much of historic Route 66 are all part of the DNA that resulted in Cars. But who here recalls the initial reaction to the announcement that Pixar was making a movie about... talking cars? It ranged from indifference to outright derision. (Except from the cheerleaders, who, as usual, just trusted Lasseter and the Mighty Lamp.) Cars was obviously going to be trite, obvious, and little more than a two hour Chevron commercial. Worse yet, how could anyone create talking cars that kids would find cute 'n cuddly? And how many toy cars were already being sold every year, anyway? Pixar and Disney would never be able to penetrate THAT oversaturated market. Long story short... Cars created not just a bunch of compelling characters that kids fell in love with, but a whole world. Yes, the film played far better in America than it did overseas (it was, after all, a fairly personal story from a very American guy). So it makes sense to take these characters and send them out into the world. They can meet other cars from other cultures? What a concept! Oh... and the cars sell pretty well, too.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Just showing that film quality and after-market don't necessarily have anything to do with each other, Cars is easily the most successful after-market merch machine for Pixar, but is generally considered their weakest film artistically. I agree with that; I liked it, and some things about it are very good; but it's the only Pixar film I didn't love, and I could see the formula "gears" moving in too many spots.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 And now I've just gone OT, talking about film quality in an after-market thread. Sorry!!
Originally Posted By Ursula I don't know from after market, but I do know that the first time I saw the Toy Story 3 teaser thingie, I cried. I missed my friends and I was so happy to see them again. And then I started looking for my Buzz figure. And our 3-year old friend Evan LOVES the Cars cars. They are cartoony enough for him and story-driven enough for us to play them with him making up our own stories of what Lightning and Ramone are up to. I guess what I'm saying is that with Pixar movies, the story and the characters are so good, they do lead to after market purchases because we like the characters so much. Having a 2 or a 3 of something just means we get to spend more time with them. I think the rocket science needs to figure out how to get other movies to create such great characters.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Toy Story became a marketing phenom despite an incredible amount of opposition. When the first film was introduced, nobody at Disney had any faith in the merchandising.*** If so, whoever made that call is myopic beyond belief. I remember talking with friends when we first heard of Toy Story about how brilliant it was from a marketing perspective to make a movie ABOUT toys (in other words, made for marketing).
Originally Posted By DlandDug It was an incredible blunder, further compounded by the choice of the rather small company that did get the license. Thinkway was a tiny educational company, and they did not have the wherewithal to mount a major campaign. It took some time to get the master license into the hands of a company that really knew how to handle a major property.
Originally Posted By leemac <<It was an incredible blunder, further compounded by the choice of the rather small company that did get the license. >> It wasn't out of choice. Mattel was already trying to extricate itself from their licensing deal with Disney as they had seen diminishing returns since The Lion King. Hasbro was in the middle of a reorganization. And that is the global toy market. There just wasn't anyone willing to take a punt on the movie. Thinkway knew how to create electronics toys which is why the "talking" Buzz and Woody were released. Inventory availability wasn't Disney's fault - it was down to Thinkway misreading the market. Thankfully Thinkway have remained a partner with DCP and their product on Wall-E was exceptional. One of the issues with the recent movies is a lack of aftermarket. Neither Ratatouille or Wall-E will last in the public's consciousness. Up may be a box office phenomenon but it just doesn't have marketable characters. When you are spending close to $200m on a movie (I'm told Up was $180m) you need to be able to bolster the take with consumer products. Relying merely on box office grosses and DVD rentals/sales just isn't the Disney way. DWA still hasn't found a way to crack the consumer products nut despite having movies that are very popular and have potentially marketable characters. Kung-Fu Panda was a massive success but didn't spawn any additional revenue streams. Ultimately Disney/Pixar need to get the right balance. My concern of late is that Pixar is creating very expensive arthouse movies like Wall-E and Up (and all of the non-sequels on the roster) whilst Feature Animation is pandering to the juvenile set with the likes of Bolt. There needs to be an appropriate balance struck. Too many other parts of the business rely on the engine of the Studios to create product that reaches the mass market. I hope that The Princess and the Frog becomes another The Little Mermaid but there is a lot riding on it.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>It wasn't out of choice. Mattel was already trying to extricate itself from their licensing deal with Disney as they had seen diminishing returns since The Lion King. Hasbro was in the middle of a reorganization. And that is the global toy market.<< I didn't intend to imply that the blunder was on the part of Disney, but rather the toy companies themselves (yeah, I'm lookin' at you, Mattel). There were also other players who certainly could have stepped up and done a better job than ThinkWay. Tomy was a global player at the time, and Playmates has had a long term relationship with the company. I absolutely agree that Ratatouille and Wall-E do not lend themselves well to after market. But I think it would be a mistake to assume this means all future production should be approved only with the "assurance" that a popular toy line could be developed. By that criteria, I doubt Cars would ever have gotten off the drawing board. DreamWorks inability to keep toys in the stores is a puzzler. Shrek should, by all the usual measuring sticks, be a big hit at Target and Toys 'r Us. Almost makes one believe that it's best to just make great films and hope for after market lightning to strike. (I am dying to see if DreamWorks is able to cash in on the immense popularity of the TV series Penguins of Madagascar at the toy store!)
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Up may be a box office phenomenon but it just doesn't have marketable characters.<< I am inclined to agree, but do feel there are exploitable properties that would sell well in the immediate aftermath of the film. It's kind of lazy that the dogs have, so far, been the only major line of characters. While we were in the theater, my dd exclaimed, "I want one" as soon as Kevin's babies appeared on screen. I also cannot help but feel that some sort of flying/floating toy could have been produced in conjunction with Up. Both Carl's house and Muntz's airship would probably sell through initially.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead "There needs to be an appropriate balance struck. Too many other parts of the business rely on the engine of the Studios to create product that reaches the mass market." I agree sort of. But I think you're putting too much focus-slash-blame on the studios. It's the studio's responsibility to put out a good movie that turns a profit. That's all you can ask them to do. It's the merchandising department's responsibility to make toys people will buy. It's the theme park's responsibility to make attractions people want to ride. It's unfair to disparage Pixar for not making "Up" a film full of marketable characters. The makers of "Bolt" did it. They made a hit with extremely marketable characters. So where is the merchandise? I'm not going to turn my eye to the creators of the film. I'd look at merchandising and the current climate. Maybe the folks designing toys are dropping the ball. Maybe it's just the economy. Maybe it's WalMart's world now, and toy companies need to figure out how to live in it. It's complicated. I got a great father's day gift today: a great big remote control WALL-E robot. I have been eying it for a year now. It looked like the coolest toy since the talking Stitch (my all time favorite Disney toy). But even I, an insane Disney fan who loved WALL-E more than any movie I've seen in the last five years, couldn't bring myself to buy the robot. It seemed so wasteful. And I'm a guy who bought the talking Stitch three weeks before the movie opened. And I don't think I'm alone. Bottom line - it's dangerous to expect artists to put the cart before the horse and make movies to push plastic crap and spawn roller coasters. Let the other departments do their jobs, and let Pixar do the voodoo they do.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss FWIW, I am a hardcore collector of the Mattel CARS die cast toy line. Today there was a collectors event at K-Mart stores nationwide. I bought 76 cars, spending roughly $300.00. This is on top of the 72 cars I bought when K-Mart had a pre-sale of the same toys. FYI, the Mattel CARS line now consists of over 200 different cars characters and variants, and at least another 100 more will be produced in the next couple of years. Then there is the CARS 2 movie, which will undoubtedly unleash hundreds more die cast toys. Truly a monster hit for Disney and Mattel as far as toys are concerned.
Originally Posted By leemac <<It's the studio's responsibility to put out a good movie that turns a profit. That's all you can ask them to do. >> I'd have to disagree with you there - the Studios' output is way too important to the rest of the business for them to focus merely on bringing out popular movies. The Studios need to ensure that they have at least one movie annually that can generate consumer products revenue - it doesn't have to be a Pixar/Feature Animation movie (look at POTC) but it needs to lend itself to marketable consumerables. DCP has been VERY lucky that it has been able to replace movie-based product after the last POTC movie with $1bn-plus revenue streams from Disney Channel product like Hannah Montana and Jonas Brothers. If those dry up you can bet you bottom dollar that Andy Mooney will be telling Bob Iger to push the Studios into better partnering.
Originally Posted By leemac <<the talking Stitch>> Is this Aloha Stitch? He is my favorite toy - I absolutely love him. But then I also love my talking Flik and wish I'd bought the Thinkway Talking Tuck 'n' Roll.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***it needs to lend itself to marketable consumerables*** Wow..."consumerables" doesn't even register on my spellchecker. I agree with that other guy...let them put out fantastic, quality movies and leave the other stuff to the other guys. Otherwise, it will most certainly suck (when the suits get involved with creativity, it always does...as we well know).
Originally Posted By Anatole69 ^^ Hear hear. I agree. Putting out marketable films that put artistic concerns in the back seat is a short term gain strategy. Eventually the cuts in artistic quality eat away at the brand and you get marketable products that have lost their consumer base. - Anatole
Originally Posted By leemac <<Wow..."consumerables" doesn't even register on my spellchecker.>> Sadly it is an industry term. Rather ugly but it says what it is on the can. <<Eventually the cuts in artistic quality eat away at the brand and you get marketable products that have lost their consumer base.>> You would have thought that was the case but there is a lot of goodwill built up in the Disney brand. Otherwise it would have been eroded by movies of the quality of Beverly Hills Chihuahua, College Road Trip and Underdog. It will take a lot for families to not trust Disney anymore. <<Putting out marketable films that put artistic concerns in the back seat is a short term gain strategy.>> And why are they mutually exclusive? Why can't you have an artistic and marketable movie? I'm not suggesting that every feature should have other business units like WDP&R and DCP in mind but the Studios needs to produce synergistic product at least once a year. If Pixar's cost base continues to soar to north of $200m before marketing costs (which it can't be far from by now) then they are flying dangerously close to the sun if you only consider grosses. They need to strike a balance that works. <<The makers of "Bolt" did it. They made a hit with extremely marketable characters. >> Do you think so? I thought that the characterizations were rather formulaic and the look was very homogeneous. I just didn't think that the characters would transcend the screen. It could just be that the days of movie tie-ins are dead - kids are perhaps too savvy to take the bait. They are looking to create their own crazes without being force-fed consumer products. Although that definitely doesn't work when you factor in POTC and Hannah Montana. It is a quandary for sure.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <It could just be that the days of movie tie-ins are dead - kids are perhaps too savvy to take the bait.> Could be. It could also be that the consumerables that are produced for these movies have been essentially the same for the past 10-15 years. At least at Disney, it seems that when these animated movies are produced -- they have a laundry list of stuff that is generated. Plush (for those talking dogs in 'UP' -- really?), action figures, overly colorful T-shirts, coloring books, sticker albums -- sure, it's produced for children, but it's all the same stuff movie after movie. Just like at Disneyland. They have a new marketing campaign (50th Anniversary) and it's the same T-shirt, cap, coffee mug, antenna ball, mouse pad, kitchen magnet that they produced 10 years ago -- just with a new logo slapped on it. After a while, it gets boring. And when you're relying on the collectors of Disney stuff to come back and buy, I would imagine that it gets really difficult to keep that group engaged. How much of this type of stuff does one person need? Thing is, consumer products could be a bit more creative in what is produced. But like all the other 'profit centers' I'm sure there's tremendous pressure on what to produce and what they hope will sell. But I can see how Disney would need to rely on at least one movie for consumerable tie-ins. Thank goodness Disney didn't tag their hopes on the new 'Witch Mountain' movie. Someone, somewhere would have a warehouse full of Dwayne Johnson action figures collecting dust.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss << They have a new marketing campaign (50th Anniversary) and it's the same T-shirt, cap, coffee mug, antenna ball, mouse pad, kitchen magnet that they produced 10 years ago -- just with a new logo slapped on it. After a while, it gets boring. And when you're relying on the collectors of Disney stuff to come back and buy, I would imagine that it gets really difficult to keep that group engaged.>> Disney makes the same-ol' kitchen magnets or antenna balls because that's what some people collect. Those collectors are not looking for some new gee-wiz gadget that catches the eye of the general Disney fan/collector; they want another magnet to add to the 500 or 5000 they've got on the fridge.
