Originally Posted By irishfan Ok, really should have read through my message before posting...far too many "overs" and "here's" for my liking!
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo We have to wait until July 27th for Cars here in the UK. Although the world cup had some impact, I heard the main rationale was Disney wanted to concentrate on releasing PotC Dead Man's Chest simultaniously in the US and UK. Reading all the info though, it just seems like the world isn't into Cars as a theme as much as I thought!
Originally Posted By leemac <<I believe it doesn't open for another month or two in the UK , well after World Cup fever ends.>> The answer is actually two-fold to that (and Dave alluded to part of it) being that kids aren't on vacation in most of Europe yet (and won't be for several weeks) and Disney wanted a worldwide simultaneous release for Dead Man's Chest. Disney is convinced they can break records with it.
Originally Posted By irishfan >>Reading all the info though, it just seems like the world isn't into Cars as a theme as much as I thought!<< It does seem so. I saw it over the weekend, visually it's stunning, I loved many of the characters, but the story is just far too familiar, and the movie is a good 20 minutes too long.....Pixar does "Days of Thunder".... Nemo is still my favourite Pixar movie.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan #1 two weeks in a row! $114.5 million in 10 days! There is a strange schadenfreude vibe in this thread I just don't get based on how well this movie is doing.
Originally Posted By cstephens I think part of that is that people's perceptions are skewed. If every subsequent movie doesn't have record-breaking numbers, then it must therefore be the decline of western civilation as we know it. "Well, those aren't 'Lion King' numbers." Yeah, well, most *everything* aren't "Lion King" numbers. So many people don't seem to realize that "Lion King" is an exception, not a rule, not a benchmark that every film is supposed to hit. I think it's the same phenomenon happening here. Pixar has historically done very well with their films, so if any film has a hint of not being a mega-blockbuster right out of the gate, then it's doom and gloom. It also fails to realize that other studios are having successes with their animation films as well, something that wasn't happening when Pixar first started having movies out. It's not necessarily that Pixar is getting worse - other studios are getting better and there's more competition. As I've already stated in another thread, I wasn't particularly thrilled with "Cars" myself but I can certainly appreciate that other people like it, and I can see what the box office numbers mean. /cs
Originally Posted By wahooskipper The big money comes in DVD rentals/sales. It is a movie I would want to add to my collection.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think part of that is that people's perceptions are skewed. If every subsequent movie doesn't have record-breaking numbers, then it must therefore be the decline of western civilation as we know it.<< Exactly. It's funny, the movie business has brought this on themselves, by trumpeting every new release's numbers as the next high-water mark. It's a sword that cuts both ways, because when a film is #1 at the box office two weeks in a row, it's 'disappointing' that it only make $114 million. I should be so disappointed. And the 'records' are getting a bit screwy: "This film made the most money ever on a Tuesday following a Mother's Day that lands on an odd-numbered day."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It's not necessarily that Pixar is getting worse - other studios are getting better and there's more competition.<< When we went to see Cars, there were half-dozen computer animated film trailers. Lots of woodland creatures, the Robinsons, an ant movie, and the next Pixar film. Some looked good, others looked a little been-there, done-that. There is a finite appetite for animated films in this country, and it only makes sense that more and more families are waiting for DVDs when the price of a ticket is $10 plus whatever you'd spend on snacks. That's a serious investment for the average family.
Originally Posted By leemac <<#1 two weeks in a row! $114.5 million in 10 days! There is a strange schadenfreude vibe in this thread I just don't get based on how well this movie is doing.>> Kar2oonMan I don't see why. Pixar are spending more and more money on their movies thanks to the cost of talent and I think Disney will be disappointed in the final US gross. Another 30% decline next weekend and Cars could struggle to $200m. That doesn't cover Pixar's cost on the movie without even thinking about distribution and marketing. You can argue about merchandise until you are blue in the face but more tickets=more product sold. There are exceptions like Lilo & Stitch but they are few and far between. I don't see why you have to constantly complain that this is being debated in these forums.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Another 30% decline next weekend << But people in this thread were already convinced it wouldn't be #1 on Friday. Then the weekend came and went, and the film is indeed #1, but not #1 'enough.' Okay. >>I don't see why you have to constantly complain that this is being debated in these forums.<< Debate away. I've said all I needed to. Anyone who wants the numbers to be disappointing will make it so.
Originally Posted By leemac <<But people in this thread were already convinced it wouldn't be #1 on Friday. >> I must have missed that post as I don't recall any LP-er suggesting that. It was a possibility after Black's new movie opened strong on Friday but Cars brought it back at the weekend.
Originally Posted By idleHands "That doesn't cover Pixar's cost on the movie without even thinking about distribution and marketing." I'd be truly shocked if Pixar actually spent $200 million to produce 'Cars.' Something about that sounds way off to me.
Originally Posted By idleHands Of course Disney does not get all the box office receipts. Duh. But your wording implied that the cost to produce 'Cars' approached the $200 million number, given that you specifically excluded marketing and distribution costs. No need to get snippy. Well, looks like you just might get your wish. 'Cars' isn't doing as well as analysts and Burbank executives desired. Fitzgerald is probably doing his happy dance about now.
Originally Posted By leemac <<But your wording implied that the cost to produce 'Cars' approached the $200 million number>> No. Probably somewhere between $120-140m I suspect. So given 50% of the gross to Disney would put the break-even at between $240m - $180m. Marketing? Probably $60m. I'm sure Cars will ultimately be profitable once you factor in everything but it has underperformed. Perhaps by up to 50% so far. <<Well, looks like you just might get your wish.>> I would never ever wish ill on any part of the company or their partners. Cars will have a long life like most Pixar movies. Did it move me? No. I still prefer the non-Lasseter movies like Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo. There are enough Lasseter fans out there anyhow. <<Fitzgerald is probably doing his happy dance about now.>> I'm certain he isn't. He has no need to worry about Pixar or their movies. They are supplying enough product to WDI these days as it is.
Originally Posted By cstephens Don't know what it is now, but the accepted rule had been that breakeven was about about 2 1/2 times the cost of the film, and that's including prints and advertising. With some films, of course, that number will be a bit more because there's more money spent on advertising. Is the studio making money off this film? Oh, yeah. Are any of the talent making money off this film? Depends on their deals. Are their always going to be people predicting gloom and doom for Disney no matter what? Definitely. /cs
Originally Posted By leemac <<Are any of the talent making money off this film? Depends on their deals.>> There is no doubt that the Pixar team are well remunerated for their services. It isn't just the culture that prevents defections. WDFA was the best game in town but hard cold cash saw the initial defectors cross the freeway to Glendale and DreamWorks.
Originally Posted By cstephens Oh, I wasn't talking about Pixar. They're the producers. That's a separate deal, and their animators and such might have bonuses attached to box office, but I was referring to the voice talent. Owen Wilson is probably at a point now where he gets a percentage of profit, but I'm not sure if that carries to work in animated films. Other than Paul Newman, I can't think of any other voice talent who would get anything other than straight pay. /cs
