Investors Worry That Pixar’s Up Isn’t Commercial Enough

Not too long ago we addressed the rumours that Pixar might be working on a sequel to Monsters, Inc., which, if true, would become the fourth Pixar sequel to be developed to date (after Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3, and Cars 2). This is a studio that has always prided themselves on original ideas and a commitment to story above all else, so it might seem strange that they would consider rehashing previous successes when there is probably no shortage of inspiration for new films. A recent article in The New York Times, however, would seem to reveal some of the truth behind these plans.

The bean counters over at Disney are a little concerned that Pixar’s next film Up, due out this summer, may have the least commercial potential of all their productions to date. Retailers are not particularly hopeful about selling Up-related merchandise, and there are also concerns about the limited appeal of an older protagonist and the lack of a female lead, not to mention more scenes that are light on dialogue and some even rendered in black-and-white. It is interesting to note that as Pixar has become increasingly concerned with creating quote/unquote “art”, their films have started to drop in box office revenue. Wall-E and Ratatouille have been their least successful movies to date, although $224 million and $216 million can hardly be considered a disappointment. However, with Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 coming up in 2010 and 2011, it looks like they are doing their best to keep investors happy. What do you think, is there a possibility that Up might underperform at the box office? And if Pixar bows to commercial pressures, will the quality of the work suffer?



  • David

    Well, since Disney now owns Pixar things have changed. But unfortunately, Disney is not taking into account that their own animation studios have tanked and now they are trying to change this one to suit their narrow view. A shame, it is ok though, another 3D studio will rise and take “Dixar’s” place.

  • I thought this looked like the most commercial of all there films. I mean, it looks like a looney tunes cartoon to me almost.

  • This movie is going to make buku bucks. Merchandising will be nil aside from tie-ins with fast-food joints and the like (I don’t see anything like a Buzz Lightyear phenomenon emerging) but the film will do big, big numbers.

    Unless the old man turns out to be a nazi-pedophile.

  • Matt

    Up will be successful. Pixar and disney have cache and I think most parents instinctual take their kids to a new pixar movie as long as the previews look cute and cartoony enough.

  • UP indeed may end up being their least commercially successful movie, but I’m betting now that it’s going ot be a good movie.

    Those sequels will be done well, too. They may not be an original idea, but they’ll still be good.

  • The beauty of Pixar movies is they are enjoyable and draw teenagers, young adults without kids, and keep the parents interested. I don’t see how this movie doesn’t do that.

  • Rusty James

    I know it’s a business and everything. I’m not Henrik I don’t have anything against anyone trying to make a buck. But is it just lost on the suits that the goal of selling happy meals and merchanise is diametrically opposed to the goal of making good film?
    Isn’t this need to make movies based around marketing toys ultimately what tanked Disney’s old animation studio?
    Cars was their most timid and unimaginative film to date and it was also considered lack luster financially. That’s great that it sold lots of plastic crap. But since they’re a FILM company can’t they settle for making good films that make “only” 220 million instead of a lackluster film that makes 500 million. Can’t that be ok.

  • swarez

    Disney makes most of its revenues on merchandising so it’s understandable that they might be a bit worried about this one. I don’t see allot of kids going out and play with an old geezer and a chubby scout. But this film will be printing money none the less it’s just that the toy department will get the shaft on this one. But since Pixar runs the Disney animation studio they can do pretty much what they want.

  • Ian

    I saw a trailer for this one. I was leary then there was a Zeplin that’s fuckin’ awesome! There is absolutely no way a movie with a Zeplin is not exciting in some way.

  • Rusty may think I’m lame but he hit the nail with this one. Excuse me while I don’t give a fuck what Disney bean counters think. They said the same horseshit about Ratatouille and that movie was great.

    This is from TFA (the fucking article):

    “To the extreme irritation of the Walt Disney Company, however, two important business camps — Wall Street and toy retailers — are notably down on “Up.”

    What’s that? Wall Street is worried about a movie? Is this the same Wall Street that plundered the housing market and sent it crashing to the ground? The same Wall Street where AIG toppled? If I were Disney I’d tell Wall Street to fuck off and let Pixar make whatever hell they want to make. Last I checked, Disney wasn’t hurting because of anything Pixar was doing.

    Fucking Wall Street. . . .

  • Goon

    “They said the same horseshit about Ratatouille and that movie was great.”

    exactly – after Cars and the mammoth its turned out to be for merchandise still years after the fact, they’re going to be putting out marketing “disappointments” until Toy Story 3 is released.

  • swarez

    Ratatouille was crap.

  • I agree swarez.

  • A few points.

    Wall-E and Ratatouille both won Academy Awards. That’s worth a lot to companies.

    Ratatouille was huge overseas.

    The last 7 Pixar movies have made over $200 million. Hardly a sign of trouble.

    Not every film needs toy tie ins. I think between Cars and Toy Story brands, billions will be made over the next decade.

    Coming up with “new” ideas may limit marketability of individual films (sequels often are much bigger than originals) but it keeps the company name overall more marketable and prevents burnout by doing the same thing over and over.

  • I commend Pixar to sticking to their guns and continuing to develop more “artistic” films. UP may not be the highest grossing movie of the year, but it is sure to instill a little more credibility in more mature audience.

  • Justice

    Ratatouille was amazing and Wall*E was the best movie of last year. If Pixar has to make crap Cars 2 to appease Disney so they can make movies like that, I can live with it.

  • Katharine

    Every single Pixar movie I believe is great. I am a mother of two boys and grew up on Toy Story 1 & 2 and Bug’s Life. My oldest son who is 3 absolutely loves every Pixar movie out there. These movies arer not ment for 30 year old men to sit around and decide what is funny. Personally, Bolt the newest one on DVD is in my house, and although I do not believe it as good as some in the past my son loves it. They know what kids like and they produce it.

    As for sequals, I see nothing wrong with sequals as long as they are done right. As we can see Toy Story 2 was GREAT and so will #3, Cars 2, and Monster’s Inc 2. What some people don’t understand is that they space these out… Give a movie 5 years and then you have a new audience…. ex: Cars, My 3 year old LOVES however he may get out of it, but My 9 month old in 2 years will be exsatic. Pixar is awesome… Dreamworks needs to look to them for some advice, The first two Shreks were great, but they come out every year (tshhhh) Why not sell out and make it a T.V show Come On

  • “ex: Cars, My 3 year old LOVES” I have some issues with this guy and would like to debate him. please wake him up from his nap.