goldenstate5 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 5 minutes ago, RichWS said: I don't understand the "this and IO were released too close together" idea. What? People OD'd on Pixar? Did they stay away cause they had their Pixar fill? I love how people extract context out of posts. I never said that's why this film bombed, but I was exploring on the possibility of it being a minor factor as it stripped a bit of event factor away, and comparing that to the upcoming Cars 3/Coco double release in 2017. As for Dias Dos Los Muertos, Disney plans their films around tentpole release dates. The start of the holiday season (November), Thanksgiving (Coco's current release date) and Christmas are the big holiday "gets" (unless you're, y'know, effin Star Wars). Pulling Coco to the top of November would be hysterically "close but no cigar", but Thanksgiving is still going to seem odd almost as if that it, unlike Book of Life, won't feel to tied to needing the Halloween season to be present. I think a summer release could work and wouldn't impact it any other way. It actually even seems MORE in Disney's favor to switch the two considering it debuts literally the week after Illumination's Grinch remake is released onto the world. Coco seems almost already dead in the water considering. Back onto TGD btw: Chipmunks and Star Wars both did double duty to bury this film alive. Expecting $120 DOM tops at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichWS Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Settle down, big fella! I never said you said that's why it bombed. I just don't think it was a factor at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDC1987 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 2 hours ago, RichWS said: I don't understand the "this and IO were released too close together" idea. What? People OD'd on Pixar? Did they stay away cause they had their Pixar fill? Well Pixar's first flop came the first time they ever released two movies in one year. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but sometimes it works out that way. Saturation and diminishing returns are a factor in the entertainment industry, especially when the first product is as big as Inside Out. For another example, the latest entries in a franchise historically do better when they are released with a normal span of time between their predecessors and themselves, as opposed to when they are part of two part finale or something similar. For a music industry example, Pt. 2 of Timberlake's 20/20 Experience plummeted from Pt. 1. For a television example, The Walking Dead just fell in the ratings and viewership from its previous season for the first time, after Fear The Walking Dead aired for 6 weeks (7 weeks with the break) right before its return and stole some of it's new season thunder. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichWS Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Saturation comes from the same genre, not the same company. Minions and Inside Out open within 3 weeks of each other and both make well over $300M. If Minions happened to be from Pixar, I doubt it would have made any less. And I don't see how the franchise example works here. IO and Good Dinosaur are two completely different films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDC1987 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Yeah, don't even try it. Pixar is a brand and household name, not just a company. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 There was no Disney Animation film this fall, though. You think TGD would have made more money if they didn't put the Pixar label on it? It plain didn't connect. That's all there is to it. Maybe one could argue that its story depth would've been better appreciated if it weren't coming on the heels of the more overtly "original" Inside Out, but it seems I'm the only one who sees it as it is so who knows 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDC1987 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) The film wouldn't exist without Pixar so that's a non-sequiter. The point is it should have made more because of the brand. Quality is only a minute factor, Cars and Cars 2 were both total shit and look at how much they made. Edited December 21, 2015 by PDC1987 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 The film wouldn't exist without Pixar so that's a non-sequiter. What I mean is if they didn't mention Pixar at all in the advertising,you think it would've performed better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDC1987 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 No, and that's not the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 Then I'm not seeing it. There was no more of an overload of big budget family fare than usual this year, especially considering that 5 noms for the Oscars is in doubt. People don't decide not to take their kids to the new movie out just because they saw one from the same company back in summer, and sure as hell not if it's Pixar. There has been quite a bit of complaining about the film's dark humor, notably the drugged berries and the bug decapitation. And in general the film has a more earnest tone than most Pixar movies. It doesn't treat its premise like one big joke the way Cars does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJaros Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) TGD bombed because it was boring. Gentle plant eating Brontosaurs running a farm and making their mark? Not sure how this got greenlighted and then released. As JW showed, people want to see huge meat-eating dinosaurs terrorizing everything in sight. Nothing else. Edited December 21, 2015 by SteveJaros Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinoiserie Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 3 hours ago, tribefan695 said: Then I'm not seeing it. There was no more of an overload of big budget family fare than usual this year, especially considering that 5 noms for the Oscars is in doubt. People don't decide not to take their kids to the new movie out just because they saw one from the same company back in summer, and sure as hell not if it's Pixar. There has been quite a bit of complaining about the film's dark humor, notably the drugged berries and the bug decapitation. And in general the film has a more earnest tone than most Pixar movies. It doesn't treat its premise like one big joke the way Cars does. But Pixar's films also have adult audiences that both go alone and decide to take the kids to the film instead of kids deciding. If that audience got their Pixar fill with Inside Out they would have skipped this after hearing it is not one of Pixar's best. Not that this had a big impact but it did have some. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted December 22, 2015 Author Share Posted December 22, 2015 Well, on some level I appreciate audiences being selective in that way and I'd rather Pixar be held accountable for mediocre product. I wish it wasn't this product being labeled mediocre, but what can you do? Seriously, I think there's a whole other layer to this film everyone's missing relating to how Arlo's supposed to earn his mark at the beginning versus how he actually does it, and it's what justifies the film's title the most in my mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvin Frohike Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) 13 hours ago, PDC1987 said: Well Pixar's first flop came the first time they ever released two movies in one year. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but sometimes it works out that way. Well, a sample size of 1 (for Pixar specifically) is usually not considered statistically significant in identifying trends , and counting all studios, like I pointed out earlier there are counterexamples. 13 hours ago, RichWS said: Saturation comes from the same genre, not the same company. Minions and Inside Out open within 3 weeks of each other and both make well over $300M. If Minions happened to be from Pixar, I doubt it would have made any less. And I don't see how the franchise example works here. IO and Good Dinosaur are two completely different films. Even more generally I think that the impact of "cannibalization" (competition) is frequently overstated. By and large people will go see the movies they want to see eventually--it's far from a zero-sum game at any given point in time regardless of what else may be playing. In addition to your example, there was the summer of 2013, which had Despicable Me 2 and Monsters University both get big grosses. If the total box office more or less holds steady from year to year, then I think that's more of a result of the law of averages than the notion of a fixed amount people spend on movies each year. I seriously doubt that people have a yearly budget for movies--they'll spend more on movies and less on other things if there happen to be a lot of movies that interest them, and vice versa. The bottom line is that each movie and its marketing must get their attention and interest. 13 hours ago, tribefan695 said: There was no Disney Animation film this fall, though. You think TGD would have made more money if they didn't put the Pixar label on it? It plain didn't connect. That's all there is to it. And whether the following are valid/deserved or not, many pre-release perceptions of TGD by many people were negative. Not enough people found the characters appealing, and many also stated that it felt overly derivative (i.e. been there, done that). It just didn't garner their interest enough, one way or another, despite the usually potent Pixar brand name. The brand still has some pull, certainly, but it no longer guarantees a top-notch movie--not since Cars 2 at the very least. Edited December 22, 2015 by Melvin Frohike 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shayhiri Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 PIXAR WENT THE WAY OF THE DINOSAURS... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaldun Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 15 minutes ago, shayhiri said: PIXAR WENT THE WAY OF THE DINOSAURS... Don't worry their next movie is Finding Dory and (if it's good but even if not that much), it will do a boatload of money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvin Frohike Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 20 hours ago, PDC1987 said: The point is it should have made more because of the brand. Maybe the Pixar brand did make it gross more than it otherwise would have. 20 hours ago, PDC1987 said: Quality is only a minute factor, Cars and Cars 2 were both total shit and look at how much they made. It's true that quality usually doesn't matter much (especially before release)...except when it occasionally does. Clearly Cars and to some extent Cars 2 were very popular with children, which is reflected in this franchise's tremendous merchandise sales. Before anything else can be considered, however, the movie itself has to have something that "hooks" the audience (like bait for catching fish) in a major way, and Cars had it (at least for a great many children) while TGD evidently, judging by its box office performance, did not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvin Frohike Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 6 hours ago, shayhiri said: PIXAR WENT THE WAY OF THE DINOSAURS... Well, birds are considered dinosaurs (official now by scientific consensus), so maybe this means that they will continue to evolve and soar high in the sky. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingjay Raphael Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Finally watched it........ And I'm so disappointed :/ This is the first Pixar movie that I don't love, it's not a bad movie by any way, it has some powerful moments, unfortunately, the whole movie is pretty much soulless, which is really weird coming from a Pixar movie The biggest problem is that there are no charismatic characters, apart of Spot (the cutest character ever made by Pixar, he truly saved the movie), every other character is so uninteresting, even Arlo becames boring and annoying during the movie, most of the jokes don't work, and it is really depressive, I wonder if it is the most depressive movie ever made by Pixar, even the message of the movie is weak, everything is a huge disappointment, the only good thing is the visual of the movie, which is not a big surprise coming from Pixar My mother was even more disappointed than me, saying that "she can't believe that Pixar made such a bad movie", lol I was so disappointed that I really didn't believe when it ended, I was truly expecting they to get together again, but, oh well, it was clearly a really problematic movie...... Overall, it's the weakest Pixar movie of this decade: IO > Brave > Cars 2 > Toy Story 3 > University Monsters > The Good Dinosaur Unfortunately, Arlo's journey was not enjoyable to follow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) On 12/22/2015 at 4:51 AM, shayhiri said: PIXAR WENT THE WAY OF THE DINOSAURS... I hate to rain on your parade shay, but there is about a 50/50 chance a Pixar movie wins this year and about a 99% chance it finishes top 2. Edited January 12, 2016 by MovieMan89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
