As the release date for Pixar’s latest movie, Up, inches closer, the more annoyed I get thinking about this NY Times article from a couple weeks back, in which the commercial viability of Pixar is questioned because Up might not be the cash cow that Finding Nemo was. Never before in human history have commerce and artistic intentions been so successfully combined than at Pixar, and yet still we have to hear what some asshole analyst on Wall Street thinks Pixar should be doing? The article also seems to include some factual innaccuracies. For example:
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.
First, let’s just put this into relative perspective. If by “worst performers” one means hugely successful blockbusters, then OK, I guess you’re right. But, more importantly, those two films are not the worst performers. The article oddly ignores those films’ foreign sales, also reported by Box Office Mojo. Both were huge internationally, making their total takes bigger than The Incredibles, Cars, Toy Story, or Monsters, Inc. — the last two of which are later cited in the article as franchise powerhouses with future sequels that present an upside for Pixar. Huh? And by the way: on domestic box office alone, both Ratatouille and Wall-E were bigger than the original Toy Story.
And yet we have to hear from one Richard Greenfield of Pali Research, who downgraded Disney shares to sell because he’s skeptical of “Up.” Greenfields informs us, via the New York Times article: “We doubt younger boys will be that excited by the main character.” He also doesn’t like the lack of a female lead. So let’s see…we’re supposed to accept the analysis of some self-appointed Wall Street deity who has descended from his throne to assign value to something he doesn’t really understand based on guesswork? Right. That has really worked out well so far.
One response
Stuff like this always reminds me of Barton Fink, when Barton is talking to Lipnik. “Hell, I could take you through it step by step, explain why your story stinks, but I won’t insult your intelligence. Well all right, first of all: This is a wrestling picture; the audience wants to see action, drama, wrestling, and plenty of it. They don’t wanna see a guy wrestling with his soul – well, all right, a little bit, for the critics – but you make it the carrot that wags the dog. Too much of it and they head for exits and I don’t blame ’em. There’s plenty of poetry right inside that ring, Fink.”
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.