Originally Posted By irishfan Jim Hill seems to really have it in for Cars, I've stopped reading any articles regarding the movie on that site.
Originally Posted By alexbook Slightly OT: I've noticed something odd with this page at Box Office Mojo: <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/" target="_blank">http://www.boxofficemojo.com/a lltime/world/</a> Cars is listed as #90 all-time worldwide, but the grosses shown on the same page actually place it at #84. Similarly, PotC 2 is listed as #11, but the grosses put it at #6. Am I going crazy or is there something screwy on this page?
Originally Posted By cheesybaby <<They both made $300 million and Cars made a lot more and is still in theaters. Why the double standard?>> Wall Street works in terms of EXPECTATIONS, not real actual numbers. Chicken Little was Disney's first (not counting Dinosaur) CG feature (a supposed unknown in the marketplace) and followed a string of WDFA failures (Home on the Range), so expectations were modest. Chicken Little did okay, not terrible, not great, so it pretty much fulfilled Wall Street's expectations. Cars is Pixar and follows Incredibles which made $630 million worldwide. Wall Street's expectations were that Cars would make as much as Incredibles if not more. Chicken Little: expectations were under control or low, so $300 million worldwide is fine. Cars: expectations were $630 million or more, so $385 million is a very big disappointment. I don't know why Jim gets such venom by simply stating this observation of the way Wall Street works.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I don't know why Jim gets such venom by simply stating this observation of the way Wall Street works.<< Welcome to the happy land of Conventional Wisdom, in which he who dares contradict the Conventional Wisdom is slapped silly by the rest of the herd. In this case, the Conventional Wisdom is that John Lasseter is a genius who is going to be able to wave his magic animation wand and fix everything that's wrong with Disney. Therefore, nothing that Lasseter touches can be seen as having even the slightest whiff of failure. No criticism of Cars or its box office will be tolerated, no matter how solidly based in fact it is. That was the original reason. Now that the arguments have been argued to death and the movie is all but gone from US theaters, Jim is getting venom for not giving it a rest.
Originally Posted By cheesybaby Jim doesn't help his credibility much with the constant stating and re-stating and re-re-stating of his position. He is correct and the rabid fanbase is not; he should understand this and stop making a fool of himself by publishing the same article over and over and over trying to get these people to listen to reason. He should just drop it. As a wise man said, "Never argue with a fool - people might not know the difference."
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo ^^^Agree totally. Jim is right, but there is no point flogging it. I loved Cars, but I also recognise it was a flop because it did not meet expectations. I think we need to see a real change in Hollywood's forecasting and indeed budgets.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Also, I think we are seeing a backlash in the cinemas. I really think less people are going because Plasma Screens, HD, DVD and Surround Sound mean that Home Entertainment is fantastic and cheaper. So the real money is to be made in DVD sales and broadcasting.
Originally Posted By seanyoda There's a HUGE difference between being "a flop" and "not meeting expectations". Would you really put "Cars" in the same category as "Heavan's Gate", "Gigli", "Cutthhroat Island" and "The Last Action Hero"?
Originally Posted By seanyoda << Jim doesn't help his credibility much with the constant stating and re-stating and re-re-stating of his position. He is correct and the rabid fanbase is not >> If Jim Hill wrote his headline as "Wall Street Analysts disapointed by Cars" then he wouldn't have been pilloried by the fanbase. That he keeps spinning the same tune only pisses the fanbase off even more. (It doesn't help that he harps on the international take and fails to mention that the film still hasn't opened in many countries.) Anyway, expectations are fluid. When "Cars" only opened with $60 million, analysts revised their expectations to "Cars" making 3 times that -- $180 million (since, according to conventional wisdom, domestically, a film makes 3 times its opening weekend.) When "Cars" showed itself to have legs, and reach 4 times its opening take (OK, it's not quite there yet, but it will reach it), analysts were not so disappointed.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo True Seanyoda, and maybe a flop is overstating it, but it is fair that it disappointed them. At the mo, I feel a little like Cars in my own career. We are flying high in my unit comparitively, but we are below expectations and therefore not as well received by the top brass as I would hope. I find it hard in business to see the glass half full right now, and perhaps that's where my take on cars is too.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead "No criticism of Cars or its box office will be tolerated, no matter how solidly based in fact it is." It is official. The internet has killed the ability to have an actual intelligent debate. I think Jim's criticism of CARS has been extremely lop-sided. It whiffs of an agenda. But see, I'm not saying that because I feel that John Lasseter is untouchable. I was disappointed in CARS, in that it didn't live up to THE INCREDIBLES and TS2 (I think Pixar's 2 best films). I also think the film relied too much on "Pixar stereotyping" ("hey, an Italian car would be Italian"..and then not delve too much further into the character), a crutch I had hoped Lasseter had moved away from I would just like to see balance. A balanced approach to the discussion of CARS's BO performance would cover the disappointment of the opening weekend, but then also point out that it had legs beyond what others thought it would have (and racing past supposed summer stalwarts like Superman, Shamalyan, and kooky Tom Cruise). To JUST call it a dissapointment is unfair and incorrect. But some people feel a weird need to rename CARS, "CARS, THE DISAPPOINTMENT." And it's bizarre. My main beef with that Jim feller is that he talked up POTC2 for weeks, discussing BO predictions and the cost of the film, like he was setting it up for failure. When the movie broke all records, he disappeared. He finally came back much later explaining that POTC2's numbers just show how much of a failure CARS really is. That's just plain wacky. And that, dear friends, is why I feel weird with the "disappointment" moniker. I carry no torch for John Lasseter, but the movie is both a disappointment and success. And the world is a carousel of colors.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>It is official. The internet has killed the ability to have an actual intelligent debate.<< Oh yeah. Even a simple discussion is fraught with peril. My beef was with those who determined that the film was bad based on box office performance versus prediction. But the issue quickly devolved into an us vs. them argument with Pixar and John Lassiter as the flashpoints. As Alfred Hitchcock used to say, "It's only a moooovie."
Originally Posted By cstephens So we're back to the "when did you stop beating your wife?" proposition that if you can't "admit" that "Cars" is a failure, then you're just a lackey, and if you're brave enough to position yourself against the supposedly untouchable Lasseter, then those people are simply brave enough to tell the "truth"? I'm still wondering how many dogs he kicked to have so many people blindly attacking him. Yeah, "flop". Right. That perception alone pretty much discredits someone in my eyes. Some of us can apparently distinguish between our personal preferences and what the box office is showing. And some people can't see past their own agendas. /cs
Originally Posted By mawnck Who's "we"? I thought this discussion ended a week or two ago. My post 244 wasn't in answer to whether or not "Cars" was a failure, but to the question of why there was "such venom" spewed at Jim Hill for his articles, especially the early ones. I stand by my answer, whether it applies to you personally or not. And stating that Cars has troublesome weaknesses in plot and characterization is far from a "blind attack," and Lasseter *was* the director, ya know. This is not the same issue as box office performance. Most critics agreed that Cars was much better than POTC II, and look what happened there.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic Cars grew 65% this weekend, due to it being release in dollar theaters I guess?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Cars grew 65% this weekend, due to it being release in dollar theaters I guess?<< No, it's because Snakes on a Plane didn't have any legs. BLARRRR-har-har-har-har-har-harrrrr! But seriously, I like your theory, but can anybody who knows what they're talking about (no offense intended, Dlmusic, I don't either) shed some light on this? Perhaps theaters re-booking Cars to replace MonsterAntBarnHouseBullyYard? It's interesting to see the theater count and box office pop up like that. Perhaps Jim Hill will tell us about it in his next Disappointment article? (Although he seems to have reformed for now, thank goodness.)
Originally Posted By irishfan >>Cars grew 65% this weekend, due to it being release in dollar theaters I guess?<< Dollar theatres are new to me, as the name suggests, are show's literally just a dollar??
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Usually. There are some that charge 2 or 3, but it still isn't bad. They show movies during that awkward time between their theater release and the video release at a discounted price. It's great for those movies that you want to see, but really don't feel like paying full price to see or to go through the hastle of renting it.
Originally Posted By basil fan We have one around here that's absolutely free for summer matinees. Sherlock Holmes <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/sherlock/less.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ sherlock/less.html</a>
Originally Posted By alexbook >>No, it's because Snakes on a Plane didn't have any legs.<< ROFLMAO!!!! >>Dollar theatres are new to me, as the name suggests, are show's literally just a dollar??<< Used to be. The one I go to in La Mirada is $1.50. They're currently showing Cars, Click, Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties, Nacho Libre, Over the Hedge, Lake House, X-Men 3, and You, Me and Dupree.
