The Good Dinosaur | Peter Sohn | BR/DVD release 2-23-2016 | Pixar's first BO flop

[BK007]

45 minutes ago, Melvin Frohike said:

 

It depends on what Lasseter and Pixar's creative staff collectively blame for the movie's severe underperformance.  If they fault the movie itself because of a perceived shortcoming, whether it involves story and/or even something as basic as surface appeal, then it could potentially be blamed on the filmmakers, including the director.  WDAS' Frozen managed to overcome (before it was released--never mind the phenomenon that happened afterward) atrocious marketing because one way or another it held some appeal for many people.  Maybe even its dumb trailer and ads appealed to those who were simply looking for a fun, energetic-looking movie, and nothing more.  Young children might have simply looked at the protagonists and thought "Ooh, pretty!" or the sidekicks and thought "How cute!" but the bottom line is that they wanted to see it (the box office doesn't care why).  And the same was true of Tangled, to a lesser but sufficient degree.

 

So for The Good Dinosaur was it the marketing or an inherent lack of mass appeal in the movie itself?  I don't know, but what I do know, for one thing, is that I've rarely ever seen/heard so many complaints about character design, leading up to a movie's release.  I'm OK with the character design, and it's about what I'd expect from Pixar, but for some reason apparently a lot of people don't like it and have been vocal about this.  Then there is the clash between the characters and environment, which doesn't bother everyone, but it sure bothers some.  Personally, although I do understand the purpose behind this clash--pitting the environment and nature itself against the protagonist--purely in terms of aesthetics, admittedly I think it's a bit distracting.  If I had to change this, then I would keep the characters the same and tweak the environment to suit them more, but the vast majority of people I've talked to want the exact opposite--they almost universally want ultra-realistic-looking dinosaurs to go with this environment.  And maybe that's a more general reason some dinosaur movies gross a lot more than others, in addition to the public perhaps greatly preferring to see vicious, monstrous dinosaurs.

 

It's tough to say, but the question again is how much of this will be held against the director.  Nothing happens in a vacuum there, so are Pixar collectively responsible or was it a result of the director's approach?  Did Sohn fight to convince Lasseter to keep the movie a certain way (sort of like his predecessor)?  If so, then maybe his gambit didn't pan out, and therefore his directorial career at Pixar is screwed.  Or maybe nothing of the sort happened and he will remain on Pixar's current rotation of directors because Pixar collectively like this movie a lot despite its underperformance at the box office.  Either scenario (or something in between) could be true.  I haven't heard anything definite from the inside on this so far.

 

Good point about the marketing of the character designs. Did not think about it in that way before.

 

It is possible that the GA like their dinosaurs a certain way, and TGD absolutely failed on that point with unmemorable cartoony designs. For my part, I wished it were more uniquely designed with reference to evolution etc. not necessarily vicious monster like creatures, but certainly not the joke the designs actually were.

[Melvin Frohike]

2 hours ago, Spidey Freak said:

Those directors gave the world Aladdin and The Little Mermaid. They should get to be Rulers of the Free World if it were up to me. 

 

Well, it could be that even Lasseter himself isn't above viewing these guys as "rock stars" because of what they accomplished more than 20 years ago, but they haven't had a big hit since.  I think it just goes to show that Lasseter and Pixar/WDAS really are fundamentally (underneath any compromises they may be forced to make at times, like everyone) about making the best animated features they can.  John Musker and Ron Clements' box office success early on certainly counts for something, but that was a LONG time ago now.

 

 

52 minutes ago, John Marston said:

this will be the first PIXAR film to lose money

 

Yeah, at this rate, at least, I don't see it turning a profit even with all of its revenue streams combined.  Its total cost is simply staggering--Tangled managed to make a tidy profit despite similar turmoil and cost, but it was a much bigger hit and importantly had rather robust ancillary revenue streams (especially home video, without which it would have lost money, too).  The numbers just aren't there for The Good Dinosaur.

 

By the way, it's not that it's pleasant to dwell on this, but I think that Pixar/Disney fans have to keep telling ourselves these things over and over so that we'd actually come to believe and accept it.  There are many (not so much here but elsewhere in general) who still assume that Disney could do their usual synergistic "magic" and somehow manage to profit from this movie, but looking at the numbers, apparently not this time.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Melvin Frohike

[goldenstate5]

I can not believe this is going to actually limp across 100 million and will be the lowest-grossing major studio animated release this year. Of course, you technically have to discount Shaun and Strange Magic but those were two cheap films that were basically released on a default... I can't call it "major" in any sort of capacity.

 

Although I don't think it had anything major to do with it, but the fact that Inside Out had an event-ish vibe to it with the lack of Pixar for two years compared to this one with little hype does make you think. This is the shortest break ever between two Pixar films. Remember "Ratatouille" was the first ever Pixar movie to come out just around a year after the previous one, and while actually being a fantastically made film helped tremendously with its legs, it's also still on the lower side of Pixar's highest grossing films. (and had a pretty dismal OW)

 

You can compare this to Rogue One/Episode 8 as well, and even Marvel, but all of that aside you gotta think that Disney may be rethinking releasing Coco in TGD's slot in 2017. In other words: switch the two films. You can nab the event vibe for Coco in summer, and Cars 3 is not only a sequel, but the box office results aren't primary goal in its release. 

 

Of course, Pixar has never pulled forward a film except Toy Story 2 (and Cars 3 never had a release date before replacing TS4)... in retrospect it's obvious why Inside Out stayed firm in its 2015 release date after TGD was pulled, since Pete Docter apparently had just gotten the film's story under control at that point and they had just moved into actually fully animating/producing it. We have no idea what's going on behind-the-scenes with Unkrich and his crew, but if I were Disney I would be marching straight to Pixar and investigate if this could actually be done.

Edited December 20, 2015 by goldenstate5

[AniNate]

Perhaps he didn't deviate from Peterson enough. The original dino designs had that same green cartoonish look. Don't know if Bob had the same hyperrealistic production design in mind but I think that was one of the boldest visual strokes of the film should've been kept.

I think it was important for Arlo to maintain a vulnerable characteristic, but maybe it could've been as simple as altering his and his family's color schemes a little more so they'd blend in with the environment. There's a lot of really subtle animation techniques with Arlo that I really appreciated in the movie (most notably when he's coming to after being swept away by the river), but I guess his design needed a little more tweaking to achieve full appeal

Sent from my Z667T using Tapatalk

[Jonwo]

6 hours ago, Melvin Frohike said:

 

Yeah, at this rate, at least, I don't see it turning a profit even with all of its revenue streams combined.  Its total cost is simply staggering--Tangled managed to make a tidy profit despite similar turmoil and cost, but it was a much bigger hit and importantly had rather robust ancillary revenue streams (especially home video, without which it would have lost money, too).  The numbers just aren't there for The Good Dinosaur.

 

By the way, it's not that it's pleasant to dwell on this, but I think that Pixar/Disney fans have to keep telling ourselves these things over and over so that we'd actually come to believe and accept it.  There are many (not so much here but elsewhere in general) who still assume that Disney could do their usual synergistic "magic" and somehow manage to profit from this movie, but looking at the numbers, apparently not this time.

 

Given Pixar's high budgets for this and other films, you can't help but wonder if Disney see the financial failure of TGD as a way to force Pixar to cut budgets. WDAS have been around $150-165m while Pixar is $10-20m more with the exception of TGD and sequels. 

 

Putting Coco in summer might work but at the same time, putting an original film with DM3 only two weeks apart is risky but as we saw with Minions and IO, it can work. 

[Mojoguy]

The same studio releasing two animated movies in the same year is a bad idea. One movie always tends to underperform.

It will happen with Disney next year when they put out both Zootopia and Moana.

[Jonwo]

Just now, Mojoguy said:

The same studio releasing two animated movies in the same year is a bad idea. One movie always tends to underperform.

It will happen with Disney next year when they put out both Zootopia and Moana.

 

I think both WDAS films will be fine simply because the gap between then is much larger compared to IO and TGD.

[AniNate]

Coco shouldn't be a summer release. It's a holiday themed movie.

And I would be perfectly fine with Cars 3 being the underperformer of 2017

Sent from my Z667T using Tapatalk

[WrathOfHan]

4 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

 

Coco shouldn't be a summer release. It's a holiday themed movie.

And I would be perfectly fine with Cars 3 being the underperformer of 2017

Sent from my Z667T using Tapatalk

Disney would too.

[Mojoguy]

Of course Cars 3 will underpreform.

Adults don't given a crap about that movie. Disney is only making the movie for the merchandising.

[Melvin Frohike]

7 hours ago, goldenstate5 said:

I can not believe this is going to actually limp across 100 million and will be the lowest-grossing major studio animated release this year. Of course, you technically have to discount Shaun and Strange Magic but those were two cheap films that were basically released on a default... I can't call it "major" in any sort of capacity.

 

After the devastating drop this weekend, TGD currently projects to about $132M domestic with Tangled's trajectory from here on out, which I consider optimistic since the latter had great WOM and above-average legs.  On the other hand, there is a chance that this weekend was an anomaly due to a certain disturbance in the Force , so let's see whether there will be some semblance of a recovery during Christmas weekend.

 

As for Strange Magic, I guess it effectively counts as a minor, "cheap" release, but I think the reality is that it cost quite a bit, and this cost was simply buried deeply in the whole Lucasfilm acquisition deal.  Disney dumped this movie because they didn't care for it and saw no potential in it, but I think it had cost Lucasfilm quite a bit.

 

 

7 hours ago, goldenstate5 said:

Although I don't think it had anything major to do with it, but the fact that Inside Out had an event-ish vibe to it with the lack of Pixar for two years compared to this one with little hype does make you think. This is the shortest break ever between two Pixar films.

 

Normally I wouldn't expect for there to be enough people who are even aware of such things to make a real difference, but yeah, I noticed this, too, and will file this away for future reference.  Who knows, there may be more to it than either of us would have expected.

 

 

2 hours ago, Mojoguy said:

The same studio releasing two animated movies in the same year is a bad idea. One movie always tends to underperform.

It will happen with Disney next year when they put out both Zootopia and Moana.

 

While historically it is true that this usually happens, DreamWorks Animation managed to pull off two big hits (worldwide) in the same year in 2008 and 2011, for instance.  Do you really think that WDAS have absolutely no chance of doing this even if, for the sake of argument, the general public find both of their 2016 releases appealing and both turn out to be good movies?

[goldenstate5]

10 hours ago, tribefan695 said:

 

Coco shouldn't be a summer release. It's a holiday themed movie.

And I would be perfectly fine with Cars 3 being the underperformer of 2017

Sent from my Z667T using Tapatalk

 

...then why is it being released after the holiday?

[AniNate]

10 hours ago, tribefan695 said:

 

Coco shouldn't be a summer release. It's a holiday themed movie.

And I would be perfectly fine with Cars 3 being the underperformer of 2017

Sent from my Z667T using Tapatalk

 

...then why is it being released after the holiday?

Admittedly that doesn't make much sense either, but it's still closer than summer. I would like it moved to October or early November at least

Sent from my Z667T using Tapatalk

[MrFanaticGuy34]

12 hours ago, Mojoguy said:

Of course Cars 3 will underpreform.

Adults don't given a crap about that movie. Disney is only making the movie for the merchandising.

 

Yeah.

 

That and Despicable Me 3 will come out the same month..and it's gonna trump & crush Cars 3....and be the superior animated sequel. No questions asked.

 

As for the merchandising....we may be in a case where the Minions, themselves are stealing Mater & Co's thunder and dethrones them in terms of....."This is the new animated franchise & characters that kids will mostly care about nowadays"....where as 4 or 5 years ago, it was the "Cars" franchise.

 

Never underestimate the yellow creatures called "The Minions".

Edited December 21, 2015 by MrFanaticGuy34

[goldenstate5]

1 hour ago, tribefan695 said:

Admittedly that doesn't make much sense either, but it's still closer than summer. I would like it moved to October or early November at least

Sent from my Z667T using Tapatalk

 

Well my point is that it really doesn't matter.

[AniNate]

16 minutes ago, goldenstate5 said:

 

Well my point is that it really doesn't matter.

 

I dunno, considering they no longer have the safety net of their brand with this movie bombing I don't think they'd want to risk forgoing any sort of marketing tie-ins for their next IP. And the impression I get is DdlM doesn't have the "Thank God that's over with" feelings that come after Christmas ends where people want nothing more to do with the word. I think it would be beneficial to both if they swapped their release date with the MLP movie but I still think where it is now is a better option than summer.

[BK007]

What on Earth are your acronyms?

 

 

[AniNate]

Heh.

IP - intellectual property

DdlM - Dia de los Muertos

MLP - My Little Pony

[RichWS]

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? 

[AniNate]

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? 

Yeah, I don't subscribe to that either as much as I'd like to find a non-quality related explanation for this bombing.

Guess I could word it as "Pixar greatly overestimated the number of people in the world who think like me"