“Pixar’s Art Leaves Profit Watchers Edgy”
I’d been meaning to post this for some time — the New York Times article in question was published way back on April 6th — but a few comments to this post motivated me to finally get to it. And so the question before the court is this:
Will Pixar’s newest movie Up soar…
Or crash and burn?
[Figured I’d beat the Daily Variety to potential tongue-in-cheek headlines]
Per the NY Times:
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.”
Anyone who’s followed this blog knows that I’m huge fan of Pixar, primarily because they are simply great storytellers. But have they made a miscalculation:
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.
I’m sure this is precisely why Pixar likes doing things their way instead of having some snot-nosed development exec suggesting that they make the main character younger… “and while you’re at it, introduce a female lead. In fact, she and the Protagonist can fall in love. You know, eventually… after they fight and disagree and get on each other’s nerves.”
But if you want to know what’s really going on, I suspect you’ll find the answer in this bit from the Times article:
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.
So there you have it: The movie may not become a franchise. This is what filmmakers like Pixar face because of their success: It’s not good enough to simply make a great movie; no, they have to come up with a freaking franchise.
This is how far the movie business has come, when the dark and sinister voices whispering in Wall Street’s hallowed halls worry about an upcoming movie because (a) it may not generate enough toy sales and (b) it may generate enough business to launch a sequel.
And somewhere in there is supposed to be a voice saying…
“Story? Anybody care about story?”
But at least Pixar has their heads on straight:
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.”
I can’t wait to see Up.
UPDATE: In comments, Jeff mentioned Up being compared to the work of Japanese animation filmmaker Hayao Miyazaki. Here’s the original Japanese trailer to Porco Rosso: