A Piece to the Puzzle?

The Pixar Times put up a great article on Andrew Stanton's recent words on the follow-up to his 2003 masterpiece. Finding Dory is still on track for its fall 2015 release, but of course everything has been kept under wraps.

Stanton was against sequels for a long time, but lately he's been quietly talking about them. Last summer, he talked about how the Pixar sequels were "comfort food" for them and probably the audience. He also said that we may see more sequels in the future since the people at the studio aren't "blinded" anymore, since they are a business after all. In speaking with The Los Angeles Times, who ran a rather positive piece on sequels, Stanton stated...

"It’s more often that somebody fails at a sequel than they succeed. You don’t want it to be derivative or redundant."

All of Pixar's sequels aren't derivative or redundant. Even the dreaded Cars 2, which is certainly not anything like its predecessor. People may be disheartened by the amount of sequels Pixar has made lately, but there's one thing that the sequels don't do: Rehash what made their predecessor work. Give them props for trying a different story with each sequel.

"There was polite inquiry from Disney [about a Finding Nemo sequel]. I was always ‘No sequels, no sequels.’ But I had to get on board from a VP standpoint. [Sequels] are part of the necessity of our staying afloat, but we don’t want to have to go there for those reasons. We want to go there creatively, so we said [to Disney], ‘Can you give us the timeline about when we release them? Because we’d like to release something we actually want to make, and we might not come up with it the year you want it."

Again, I always found his comments on some of this to be a bit contradictory. Going back to the comment he made about sequels and originals last summer, the originals do bring in a boatload of cash. In fact, Up outgrossed the likes of Cars 2 and Monsters University. WALL-E, Ratatouille and several other originals grossed more than $500 million worldwide so they don't need to depend on sequels. Finding Nemo is their second highest grossing film of all time, it's an original!

That being said, at least Stanton says that they'll do a sequel when they are ready, not when Disney wants one. Of course, that's all contrary to popular belief that Pixar just wants to "churn out sequels to make money/they don't care about art anymore." Toy Story 3 turned out to be excellent, and Monsters University was damn good. We have not seen Finding Dory yet, and people are already assuming right off the bat that it's going to be a blemish. A bad film! An embarrassment to the original! Another sign of the studio's "decline"! Yep, tell me more about that crystal ball of yours...

Anyways, a good chunk of people who believe that Pixar is declining tend to point the finger at Disney, saying that they were the cause behind Cars 2, Monsters University and Finding Dory (they conveniently leave Toy Story 3 out) and the overall quality of Cars 2, Brave and Monsters University. I'm sure Disney wants sequels, being a corporation and all, but going by what I've gathered over the years - they don't seem to force Pixar to make sequels. If they did, why haven't they forced Walt Disney Animation Studios to make a sequel to something like Tangled or Wreck-It Ralph? They seem more sequel-happy with their live action stuff than with what's going on in the animated front.

For the sake of those who don't know (gotta go in broken record mode here!), Toy Story 3, Monsters University and Finding Dory exist because of the copyrighted scripts for the aborted Disney/Circle 7 sequels to Toy Story, Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo. You know, the ones that were supposed to be made if Pixar were to break away from Disney after Cars. Pixar had to "overwrite" all three, but they did so when they wanted to. If that wasn't the case, Toy Story 3 would've been out in theaters quicker. No, they made sure that they delivered a fantastic finale to that trilogy. They pounced that right after the merger because they finally had the chance to make the finale they wanted to make, since one was brewing for a while. Finally getting the rights to their work back, it makes sense that Pixar's Toy Story 3 began pre-production in 2006. At one time, Toy Story 3 was actually scheduled for 2009... But guess what? It got moved to summer 2010! Monsters University was put into development some time in 2007 or early 2008 (some concept artwork is dated 2008, and it was hinted at back then), so they spent 5-6 years working on it. Maybe even more! Finding Dory? Well we have no idea, but I assume they waited a while to "overwrite" the Circle 7 'Finding Nemo 2', they didn't just dive right into it right after the merger. I'd say 2009 was when they started working on it, which will mean that they spent 6 years working on it. Typical timeframe for a Pixar film.

All of this, I firmly believe, explains why these sequels exist, why they all came/are coming out between 2010 and 2015, and why they came out so close to each other. Cars 2, again, is the anomaly of the bunch since there's no evidence that Circle 7 greenlit a sequel to Cars back in 2004/2005. Again, my conspiracy theory is that Bob Iger coaxed John Lasseter into making it after merchandise sales went through the roof and Lasseter agreed to make it because he's in love in with his universe. Can't blame him!

So basically, Pixar had to make Toy Story 3, a Monsters, Inc. sequel/prequel, and a Finding Nemo sequel. They went about the latter two in the best way possible, by not making them right off the bat. If Pixar only cared about churning out sequels, you'd see Monsters University and Finding Dory a lot sooner. As rushed, poorly-made films on top of that. No, originals exist and they continue to exist. Finding Dory is not coming out until late 2015. Why? Because two originals are coming first. But those two films don't exist, right? Right? Again, why would Pixar do two originals and then a sequel if all they cared about was mindlessly churning out sequels?

Unfortunately, Stanton or anyone at Pixar probably won't tell us about the Circle 7 deal. I think Stanton is giving us some sugarcoated PR talk, because Finding Dory exists for a reason. Disney "politely inquiring" about a Nemo sequel is not it. Pixar being money-hungry and just reared on numbers is definitely not it. John Carter bombing was not it, either. Finding Dory was most likely in the works before John Carter was officially put into production in 2010. The Circle 7 thing went down in 2004, so a Nemo sequel has been around before Stanton even got the opportunity to direct an adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' influential stories. Pixar could've put some rookie in the director's chair to handle a Nemo sequel in 2006 after the merger and have the thing out in 2009/2010, just rush it out quickly. Nope, they waited a while. The official announcement came early this year, and the film is not out till 2015. That's nearly decade since the merger! Now compare that to another big studio (animation or not) greenlighting a sequel right after the first one does incredibly well on opening weekend, and the thing arrives 2-3 years later. Every Pixar sequel has arrived over 5 years after their respective predecessors; even the rushed cash-grab Cars 2 didn't arrive immediately.

In the end, I don't think Stanton's comments fully explain the existence of Finding Dory but they do help subdue the ever-expanding and annoying super-skepticism towards Pixar. The quality of Toy Story 3 and Monsters University more than help as well... It just goes to show, Pixar does take sequels seriously and will try to make them great or at least very good companion pieces to the originals. Also, remember what Ed Catmull had to say? Yes indeed, any sequel made after Finding Dory is one that they want to make. Not one they have to overwrite or make because Disney wants them to (well, maybe except for a third Cars, but I think the Planes franchise will make Disney happy in the meantime), so whatever sequel comes after 2015 will be one that isn't forced or one that had to be made. Plus, if Disney was really forcing sequels, we'd already see a rushed Brad Bird-less Incredibles 2 around this time. In fact, a sequel to that film is not in the cards at all. Not until Brad Bird says one will be made. Yeah, Disney is "forcing" sequels alright...

Going back to the whole "staying afloat" thing, Pixar is also a business in addition to being a studio. The originals are the foundation of the company, but a few sequels here and there (that are good, mind you) aren't necessarily a terrible thing. After this wave of four sequels/prequels, it'll be "original central" for a good while with very few sequels in between. Not bad, I'd say...

Only Human...

With all the reports about a Finding Nemo sequel (from where I currently stand, it's still "half confirmed", I still want to see that "interview" that the LA Times mentioned) swimming around, more and more news outlets and writers are essentially getting more fodder for their "Pixar is dead" arguments, a disgusting trend that picked up steam when Cars 2 premiered last year. Just take a look at a passage from this recent article on Indie Wire:

Let's face it, the lamp was going through some tough times in the last two years. During production of Cars 2, a lot of talented folks have left the studio. That same year, Brave had a director change which garnered a lot of controversy within the animation community and the press. Though Brenda Chapman was fired from the project over creative differences, the press had a field day and soon you had people left and right calling Pixar a "sexist" studio, a boys' club that wasn't going to allow a woman to direct a film. A change of directors on a film isn't uncommon, especially in the animation industry. Still, it was a blemish on their reputation, because supposedly they were gods amongst men.

Cars 2 opened last year and was the first Pixar film to get generally negative reviews. Immediately, we kept hearing "RIP Pixar" and "Pixar is dead". These may be simple comments on sites, but it shows that some people are now convinced, with Monsters University and a Nemo sequel on the horizon, that Pixar has stopped being a great studio. Ignorant of the original films that are coming out between 2013 and 2017, these people most likely want to see the seemingly-invincible studio fall. This is a terrible way of thinking, and for many reasons, and now we have articles... Articles... That are also chiming in.

Brave's positive but not-so-enthusiastic critical reception didn't make matters any better, despite being a bigger success than Cars 2 and garnering significantly better word of mouth. But one must remember, Brave went through a director change and a lot of other problems were going on at the studio. This kind of thing happens. Remember Ratatouille? We're lucky that Ratatouille, despite the director change and production problems, turned out to be an excellent film. It's just a rare moment when a studio turns out eleven films that all garnered good critical reception. You know how many studios would want that track record?

Perhaps their hot streak drew jealousy. But why be jealous of an entity whose #1 purpose is to make entertainment? To give audiences something to enjoy? It's not like they did anything to them personally. Why rip them apart? They are a movie studio, not someone whose treating you like you are their child. Back to Brave though, the film still got good reviews. The critical reception was on the same level as the first Cars. It's amazing how there wasn't much "Pixar is dead" hoopla when Cars came out. Ratatouille, WALL-E and Up were highly anticipated. Toy Story 3 wasn't met with much skepticism either. So now that Pixar tripped up on one film, a sequel no less, now we can be skeptical? I don't understand that. We haven't seen Monsters University yet, nor have we even heard any early test screening reviews. We have no idea what the next batch of films will turn out to be. They could be solid gold winners, so why doubt that?

Let's just put it another way. Cars 2 was one film that happened to be a critical clunker, though some argue that Cars 2 wasn't as bad as the critics made it out to be. I personally thought it was a passable entry, but a type of film I don't want to see coming from Pixar. Guess what? I forgive them and quite frankly, I thought Brave was a wonderful film despite a few little flaws. That's okay though, if Monsters University is a film I end up giving a B+ to or something, I won't mind. Pixar is a studio, not a bunch of perfection gods. No one is, and to expect them to keep making critically acclaimed films without ever making one dud is ridiculous and dreadfully unrealistic.

Remember Disney's output after World War II began? Walt Disney couldn't launch something like Alice in Wonderland or Peter Pan into production just yet, they had to resort to making films that were less costly. Also, they lost a lot of animators after the strike in 1941. Two big blows to the soaring studio, and to their reputation. The results were a mixed bag. Some of the package features are considered classics, such as The Three Caballeros. Others aren't, like Saludos Amigos, Make Mine Music and Fun & Fancy Free. Were people proclaiming that Disney had died because the next batch of films were essentially compilations of short films?

Disney eventually made a grand comeback with Cinderella, but that was followed by Alice in Wonderland, which bombed both critically and commercially. Then, Peter Pan and Lady and the Tramp were smash hits and are considered classics today. Sleeping Beauty may have bombed, but it was the second highest-grossing film of the year and is also well-loved. Alice in Wonderland got an audience after Walt's passing and remains a popular title. Also, Disney turned out some clunkers in the 1970s and 1980s and then... We all knew what happened next. After the Renaissance, they made some more clunkers, and look, they're back on track... Bolt, The Princess and the Frog and Tangled, anyone?

Are the same "Pixar is dead" people going to reject any great films they make in the future with an "it's not the same" attitude? Will they refuse to accept anything post-Cars 2 that turns out to be a masterpiece? Given Brave's good-but-not-great reception, maybe, unless a Cars-level critical performance is not enough to satisfy them.

Time to get a grip, Pixar is only human. The people there never acted like they were on top of the world. That's all a product of certain individuals' mindsets, not Pixar's staff. It's great that they had eleven smash hits in a row, and look, Brave is sitting right alongside those very films. Don't let one film and studio politics convince you that the studio is no more.

Back to the Sea

It seems as if the sequel to Andrew Stanton's Pixar classic has been confirmed, just in time for the film's 3D theatrical re-release. Though I'm not really putting much credence in that article (where is that "interview" where Stanton confirmed a Finding Nemo sequel?), I'll still offer my thoughts on the subject.

Since Toy Story 3, Pixar has done quite a couple of sequels all within five years. This was certainly unusual for the company, as many people from the studio have said that they only go through with sequels if they have a great story. Prior to Toy Story 3, Pixar only made one sequel and that was it. Toy Story 3 was fantastic, and definitely lived up to the first two films and some minds, even surpassed them. There was no reason to be skeptical either, since Pixar was behind it after the Disney-Pixar merger and unlike the Hollywood business model, it wasn't coming right off of the success of Toy Story 2. The people at Pixar had a genuinely good idea, while also having to overwrite the potential bomb that Disney's Circle 7 studio has in the making.

As I've said before, Pixar making more and more sequels isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as they are great films. Again, I am not supportive of more sequels, but we don't know until we see them. Look at their upcoming slate. We're still getting three originals, originals which sound like game-changers for the animation medium and the whole idea of family films. People have become skeptical because of the sequel to their anthropomorphic automobiles film, but I still reject that mindset because Monsters University could turn out to be a masterpiece for all I care. Even if I give the film a B or something, I still won't be shattered. Brave didn't get the A+ I usually I give to Pixar films, but so what? They can't just make A+ films for the rest of eternity, or A-grade films, that's just ridiculous to expect.

So... Finding Nemo 2...

Personally, I don't want it. If it turns out to be an excellent film, I will gladly eat crow. I'm not saying it's going to be a surefire disaster, it's just that I don't believe there needs to be a sequel. It all just screams unnecessary. On the other hand, I think Monsters University was necessary, since it will tell us more about Mike, Sulley and the monster world itself. It's nice to see their past, instead of having them go on a new adventure. Monsters, Inc. was a film you could NOT do a sequel to in my eyes. I have the same feelings towards Finding Nemo.

Unless it isn't "Finding" Nemo this time around. Maybe it's going to be about something else. If they announce that the plot will be about Marlin losing him again, I won't be happy. However, if it's something different, I'll have some hope. Though Toy Story's sequels had the "get back to Andy's house" structure, the three films were all unique. Cars 2 wasn't anything like its predecessor. Monsters University is obviously going to have a much different plot than Monsters, Inc., so they may just come up with a new idea for this film. From all the rumblings we've heard, the Brain Trust at Pixar loves the idea. We didn't hear any of that when Cars 2 was in production, and we've heard that the Brain Trust is all for the Monsters University story.

Still, I just think one doesn't need to be made. To me, a lot of great films are unique on their own, especially animated classics. Personally I don't want to hear that sequels to any of the post-Cars films are being considered, either. The big question is: Why sequels?

Think of the Disney studio, after World War II had such a terrible affect on them. Did Walt do sequels to his beloved films to stay afloat? No, he didn't. Sure, characters from earlier films appeared in the package anthology features (i.e. Jiminy Cricket in Fun & Fancy Free), but he didn't do Bambi 2 or Snow White 2 to keep his studio alive in the 1950s. He kept tackling new stories, and Walt Disney Animation Studios has a history of staying far away from sequels despite how lucrative their classics are. It's telling that the only sequels Disney ever did were to Fantasia and The Rescuers.

Which is was I don't believe Pixar is doing sequels to just keep the business going. It'd be easy to say they've sold out, they're now just all about the money, etc. I don't think so. Toy Story 3 was fantastic, Cars 2 was gap filler (I still believe Bob Iger coaxed John Lasseter into doing it, rather than Lasseter actually having a brand new idea) that none of the Brain Trust seemed to care about. Monsters University has potential... But this does mean that it's okay for Pixar to just do more sequels?

It's a tough issue for me at the moment, because a great Finding Nemo sequel would be a real miracle. At the same time however, I just don't really want one.

What is your take on this? Do you believe that a sequel to Finding Nemo is necessary? Or do you think it's not a good idea? Do you believe that Andrew Stanton and co.'s new idea will work? Or do you think it's just a way to get people excited? Sound off!

Rant: Disney's Marketing Department

Note: I'm no expert and this entire rant is opinion-based. If you're looking for exactness, don't read any further.

Disney's marketing department has been receiving considerable amounts of criticism for their failure to promote Andrew Stanton's adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' epic science fiction novels, John Carter. What do I say? They deserve it, every last bit of it. While I don't approve of the folks who slammed the film, Andrew Stanton and the Mouse House in general, the marketing department really tripped up here. This, and along with other blunders, is what makes Disney's marketing department a target of criticism from folks such as myself, fans and the press. This colossal failure is also what hurts Disney in the long run along with their animation studio and other projects.

John Carter... It was once thought to be an epic science fiction blockbuster from the Mouse House, but it has now become the punchline of the press. It's already being forgotten by mainstream audiences, as the film has eked past $66 million at the domestic box office off of a $30 million debut. Word of mouth couldn't save it, it left audiences cold. While the reviews were on par with the likes of Tron: Legacy and higher than most summer blockbuster films that somehow gross $250 million when they don't deserve to, it still wasn't enough to save the film. It's doing respectable business overseas, but a $350 million final total won't make Disney executives happy. Lead actor Taylor Kitsch has been defending the film to the press, but we haven't heard from anyone else. Disney seems to be ashamed of the film itself.

What they should be ashamed of is how they marketed this film. Articles are everywhere, criticizing the marketing campaign. While some people were a little too mean-spirited towards the film and the Mouse House, Disney's marketing department does deserve the criticism it's getting. I firmly believed (along with many others) that the title change was what crippled Stanton's epic adaptation of Burroughs' influential classic from the start, along with the disappointing trailers and equally disappointing TV spots. In short, Disney's marketing department killed this film, and some of the people working for Disney are putting the blame on Andrew Stanton. (No, really!) Disney's marketing department crippled other films that could've been hits. This might sound insane, but something like Bolt could've easily taken in $200 million at the domestic box office, or $150 million at the least. No, that film only grossed $114 million domestically, a weak total when you stack it up next to other 2008 animated hits such as Blue Sky's Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who! ($154 million), DreamWorks' Kung Fu Panda ($215 million), Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa ($180 million), and Pixar's WALL-E. ($223 million) Instead, the marketing was lazy. The trailer was poorly put together, and the marketing pushed Miley Cyrus' name, whose character Penny isn't one of the lead characters. In fact, she's not even in it as much.

If Disney felt that this would help get the film popular, then they were dead wrong. Showing Cyrus' name probably scared off the people (such as myself) who hate "that" side of Disney. You know, the crass side of Disney that's all about Hannah Montana and the schlock on the Disney Channel. It didn't scare me off, what drove me away was the trailer. Also, I was still a bit bitter about the whole change from Chris Sanders' quirky American Dog idea into something more conventional. When I saw the film for the first time on Blu-ray (it was a blind buy, no less), I really enjoyed it. I wanted to turn back time and see the film in the theaters.

Bolt opened with $26 million at the domestic box office, which was an incredibly low opening weekend for a wide release animated film from a high profile studio. That was only a bit more than what Meet the Robinsons pulled in on its opening weekend back in 2007. Then something happened. It grew legs. Audiences clearly liked this film, but the low total said otherwise to Disney. Let's say the film was marketed properly, it would've made at least $35 million on its opening weekend. Let's just say it took in $40 million, then had the same word of mouth it did, it would've made over $170 million domestically. Maybe even more. Thanksgiving is a great time to release animated family films, but Disney blew it.

Disney blew it again with The Princess and the Frog. Instead of releasing the film sometime in November, before competition like Avatar, Sherlock Holmes and the "shitmunks" sequel, it would've scored a good-sized opening weekend. If they had marketed it like an event, and not some attempt to recreate the Disney Renaissance, then it would've had a bigger opening weekend than $24 million. (Even lower than Meet the Robinsons and Bolt!) With enough time to rake in cash before the heavy hitters came in, the film would've crossed $150 million domestically. But no, Disney released the critically panned comedy Old Dogs on the weekend Frog should've been released on. (Frog received a two theater-only release that weekend, the wide release was on December 11th) Old Dogs did poorly, and did it teach Disney a lesson? Sort of. Tangled was released on the Thanksgiving weekend, but against Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, Part 1. Still, the film's marketing was aggressive and in-your-face. This is why it opened with $48 million, got great word of mouth and worked its way up to $200 million despite the heavy competition. (With some fudging from Disney, of course) If Frog opened on that weekend back in 2009 with aggressive marketing behind it, it would've made around $35 million or more, and with legs, it would've been the hit it deserved to be!

So Tangled does extremely well, but the hand-drawn film doesn't, and now Disney's future in animation seems to be CGI-topia! If Frog didn't underperform, there would be a push for more hand-drawn projects. Not anymore, especially with Winnie the Pooh being the one of the least attended Disney animated films of all time. Apparently Disney is reverting back to their 2003 mindset: "It failed because it was hand-drawn!" No, Winnie the Pooh failed because there was hardly any effort put into the marketing and it was released against heavy-hitters in a box office bloodbath of a month. Now look, The Snow Queen is Frozen and it's going to be computer animated! Well, hopefully it's a good film or one that at least deviates from the style they used for Bolt and Tangled. If it's going to be a remake of Tangled, then I won't be happy.

See where I'm getting at? These animated films that are superior to their crop in the last fifteen years and something ambitious and enjoyable like John Carter have all done okay or horribly. If Disney's marketing department didn't make all of these blunders, these films would have been successful. John Carter's sequel is now doomed, but Disney is still going through with ambitious live action projects, like Paladin. The Lone Ranger is hitting theaters in May 2013. What about Walt Disney Animation Studios? Sure, we've got the risky Wreck-It Ralph coming out. We have no idea what Frozen will be like. All we know is that after Frozen, nothing is scheduled for 2014 or 2015. All we know is that a Mickey Mouse film is in the works and that King of the Elves is in development, as it has been in development since 2008! Anything else? What happened to Mort? Or better yet, how come we don't know about other projects that are in the works? What other ambitious projects are in the works at the Mouse House? Hardly any. Maybe in 2015, they'll surprise us all. Maybe they won't.

It's not the quality of the films, it's the marketing. Imagine if Disney's marketing department tripped up marketing another studio's film? Let's say they messed up marketing something like The Hunger Games, they would've thrown away a great opportunity. Imagine if John Carter was handled by someone like Warner Bros. or Paramount, perhaps it wouldn't have been the colossal box office disappointment that it is.

That said, Disney's marketing department is probably aware of the fact that the name "Disney" alone turns people off, especially in America. We live in a country where animation and all things Disney are called "kiddie stuff". We live in a country where classic animated films and icons are perceived as lame and kiddie. We live in a country where teen audiences won't be seen attending anything with the Disney name on it that's family friendly. It's not just in America, either, animation gets the same flack everywhere else, but in America, it is rampant. In order to get something like one of their recent animated films or something like John Carter to appeal to audiences, they need to have chops. Make these films look epic. Don't waste the trailers on failed jokes or just action. You got to find a way to lure audiences in, especially if you're putting some of your films up against heavy hitters. That's Disney's other big problem. Combining lackluster marketing with putting the films against obvious hits. (Harry Potter, Twilight, etc.)

Look at how Disney markets Pixar's films. They pour a lot of effort into marketing Pixar's films. Just look at the marketing for Toy Story 3 and Brave. Toy Story 3's marketing had the popularity of the first two films behind it, but they still put effort into it. Remember the viral marketing? The college cliffhanger screenings? They aggressively marketed it to everyone, from adults to teens to families. Brave has an excellent two-minute clip of the film being shown in theaters as a trailer, much like the trailer for The Lion King that was actually the entire "Circle of Life" scene. The marketing for Toy Story 3 and Brave made these films appeal to adults and teenagers. To everyone. Despite the "Disney is for kiddies" syndrome that people tend to suffer from, the marketing convinced them that these are events worth seeing. The only things that don't work are the trailers, but people know that Pixar delivers the goods, so the mediocre trailers never throw them off.

I can't say the same about the way they market their other films. John Carter? Three underwhelming trailers, an awful Super Bowl TV spot and TV spots that focused on action, action, action with no oomph. The recent animated films? A few trailers, not much marketing, unconvincing TV spots, and that's pretty much it. Most of these marketing materials are skewering kids anyway, while these films are designed for everyone to enjoy. Disney will keep getting the "Disney is for kids only" flack if they keep marketing their animated films this way. If their films did better, maybe animation wouldn't have such a hard time catching on in this country. If they can convince people that G and PG-rated animated films from another studio are worth seeing no matter how old they are, they can also do so for their own animated films.