Pixar’s Art Leaves Profit Watchers Edgy
LOS ANGELES — Pixar Animation Studios has never released a movie that was not a commercial and creative triumph, and its 10th feature, “Up,” is looking to be no exception — at least artistically.
To the extreme irritation of the
Walt Disney Company, however, two important business camps — Wall Street and toy retailers — are notably down on “Up.”
The film, about the adventures of a cranky 78-year-old who ties thousands of balloons to his house, features dazzling animation that evokes the work of
Hayao Miyazaki, the refined Japanese filmmaker and anime master. Like Pixar’s Oscar-winning “Wall-E,” there are stretches without dialogue. A few scenes are rendered in black and white.
Some industry watchers, a few of them still griping about the hefty $7.4 billion that Disney paid for Pixar in 2006, are fretting about the film’s commercial potential, particularly when it comes to benefiting other Disney businesses.
Richard Greenfield of Pali Research downgraded Disney shares to sell last month, citing a poor outlook for “Up” as a reason. “We doubt younger boys will be that excited by the main character,” he wrote, adding a complaint about the lack of a female lead.
Mr. Greenfield is alone in his vociferousness, but not in his opinion.
“People seem to be concerned about this one,” said Chris Marangi, who follows Disney at Gabelli & Company. Doug Creutz of Cowen and Company said qualms ran deeper than whether “Up” will be a hit — he thinks it will — but rather whether Pixar can deliver the kind of megahit it once did.
“The worries keep coming despite Pixar’s track record, because each film it delivers seems to be less commercial than the last,” Mr. Creutz said.
Robert A. Iger, Disney’s chief executive, responded, “We seek to make great films first. If a great film gives birth to a franchise, we are the first company to leverage such success. A check-the-boxes approach to creativity is more likely to result in blandness and failure.”
The budget for “Up” is about $175 million excluding marketing, on par with other Pixar titles. “Up” will not arrive in theaters until May 29, but Pixarphiles — nudged along by the studio, which has been screening footage — are already effusive.
“Sophisticated, mature, poignant,” wrote Blue Sky Disney, a blog that chronicles everything Pixar. The
Cannes Film Festival is so excited about “Up,” which will be released in 3-D, that it slotted the film on its prestigious opening night, a huge promotional platform that has never before gone to an animated film or a 3-D one.
Adjusted for inflation, Pixar’s films have generated a combined $2.65 billion at North American theaters, a spectacular showing. “Finding Nemo” in 2003 was the high point, selling $405.6 million in tickets.
Pixar’s last two films, “Wall-E” and “Ratatouille,” have been the studio’s two worst performers, delivering sales of $224 million and $216 million respectively, according to Box Office Mojo, a tracking service. Attendance for Pixar films has also dropped sharply over the years, suggesting that ticket price inflation helped prop up overall sales for “Wall-E” and “Ratatouille.”
Retailers, meanwhile, see slim merchandising possibilities for “Up.” Indeed, the film seems likely to generate less licensing revenue than “Ratatouille,” until now the weakest Pixar entry in this area. (“Cars” wears the merchandising crown, with sales of more than $5 billion.)
Target and
Wal-Mart say they will stock little “Up” merchandise, mainly because there was not much interest from manufacturers: Thinkway Toys, which has churned out thousands of Pixar-related products since 1995’s “Toy Story,” will not produce a single item. Disney Stores will offer “Up”-related products, but even that will be on a limited basis, according to analysts.
Disney sees the worry as unfair and tiresome given Pixar’s track record.
With “Ratatouille,” analysts fretted about whether moviegoers would go to see a movie about a rat in the kitchen. They did. With “Wall-E,” people feared the lack of dialogue would bore children. It did not.
So, Disney says, hasn’t Pixar earned the benefit of the doubt?
“Once again, trying to go after a premise that is far-fetched,” a written response from Disney read in part. The company noted that there is a child character in the film — a portly 8-year-old who stows away on the septuagenarian’s porch — and pointed to positive comments on blogs like Pixar Planet and Cinema Is Dope, which called the movie “entertainingly buoyant.”
Disney marketers had hoped to curtail the it’s-not-commercial reaction to “Up” by breaking with past practice and widely screening unfinished footage of the film. Inside the studio, executives are bullish on it, particularly because focus groups have responded favorably. The company added that it does not expect every Pixar movie to become a franchise.
After “Up,” the overtly commercial “Toy Story 3” arrives in 2010 and “Cars 2” in 2011, and there is much talk that a sequel to “Monsters Inc.” is in the works.
Perhaps Wall Street would not care so much if Pixar seemed to care a little more. The co-director of “Up,” Pete Docter — who also directed “Monsters Inc.” — said in a recent question and answer session with reporters that the film’s commercial prospects never crossed his mind. “We make these films for ourselves,” he said. “We’re kind of selfish that way.”
John Lasseter, a co-founder of Pixar and now Disney’s chief creative officer, routinely says in interviews that marketability is not a factor in decisions about what projects to pursue. Instead of ideas that feel contemporary, he aims for stories that are rooted in the ages.
“Quality is the best business plan” is one of Mr. Lasseter’s favorite lines.
A commercial juggernaut or not, “Up” has struck many early viewers as creatively stunning. The story focuses on Carl (voiced by
Ed Asner), a prune-popping balloon salesman who, after the death of his wife, sets out to see the wilds of South America.
His young companion, Russell (voiced by Jordan Nagai), is a “Wilderness Explorer” working on his last merit badge, “assisting the elderly.” An exotic bird joins the excursion, which encounters a hilarious squad of talking dogs.
The animation is heavily stylized. Carl is not realistic looking, for instance, but has square features: fingertips, face, liver spots. The color palette is notable for its turquoise and magenta.
Nothing involving the picture was rushed — Pixar spent four years on it — and, apparently, no expense was spared. Mr. Docter and some of his colleagues flew to Venezuela for a three-day helicopter and Jeep tour to study jungle scenery; others spent time observing a rare pheasant at the Sacramento Zoo.
“We wanted more ‘Dumbo’ and less ‘Star Wars,’ ” Mr. Docter said. “In certain parts, it’s more of a feeling we’re going after than linear storytelling.”
