Jim Hill Media's blog

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 26th, 2005, 3:11 pm

Sykes was awesome.

Robert Loggia (pretty well-known actor) did the voice, not a "celebrity" like Better Midler or Cheech Marin but very good nonethelesss.

I guess the whole "Celebrity-as-animated-character" thing started with this film but you can't say it didn't work out well for Oliver as well as numerous others.

(The film does have a lot of 80's references, (styles, music, Billy Joel, etc...) Early Katzenberg influence. But it STILL holds up pretty well, which is how I think Shrek will fare.

Post by **ShyViolet** » November 8th, 2005, 1:12 pm

Really interesting (and surprising):

http://www.jimhillmedia.com/article.php?id=1729

Post by **Meg** » November 8th, 2005, 2:49 pm

*gasp*

There are sentence fragments in that article! I mean...everywhere!

Post by **David** » November 8th, 2005, 3:38 pm

Quite frankly I wouldn't be surprised if Disney told Pixar where they could stick their terms. I for one thing Pixar are wanting too much. Under their terms, they call the shots, they have ownership over everything and Disney would have to pay to use the characters!!! Precisely what would be in this for Disney apart from their cut of the takings? And when they have shelled out for everything that Pixar wants royalties for, would it really be worth it? I think not!

Post by **ShyViolet** » November 8th, 2005, 6:31 pm

It's true because Pixar could always pull a "Phantom Menace" with Cars and produce something that looks awesome but is mediocre. Though I have high hopes...still, they ARE somewhat arrogant in their terms.

I thought the clause about not sequelizing films like Monsters Inc and Toy Story III was especially interesting.

And how involved will Lassetter be with future films? How many will he direct? I think that's an important question since he directed half of the Pixar blockbusters (Bugs, Toy Story I and II) and newcomer Brad Bird's film (even though it did VERY well) grossed the least.

Post by **Kaszubas** » November 8th, 2005, 8:41 pm

ShyViolet wrote: (...) and newcomer Brad Bird's film (even though it did VERY well) grossed the least.

What's your source of information ??? Brad Bird's movie was actually second most profitable feature in pixar's history (just behind Finding Nemo which was writen and directed by Andrew Stanton; John L. was executive producer).

Post by **ShyViolet** » November 8th, 2005, 9:15 pm

Forgive my screw-up....I think I was thinking of Incredibles vs. Shrek II.

Post by **Brandon Neeld** » November 8th, 2005, 10:26 pm

ShyViolet wrote:Forgive my screw-up....I think I was thinking of Incredibles vs. Shrek II.

On that note - Anyone think TI would've beat out FN if it had a Summer opening by itself? I do.

Post by **Kaszubas** » November 9th, 2005, 8:54 am

Brandon Neeld wrote:On that note - Anyone think TI would've beat out FN if it had a Summer opening by itself? I do.

hmmm... I think it would be hard to beat FN revenues beacause Nemo had much wider audience. For youngest kids Nemo is more appealing and easier to understand. In The Incredibles there are many moments too difficult, too mature and quite boring for babies (sometimes too dark). But it would probably have done better being alone on the battlefield.

Post by **Ben** » November 9th, 2005, 9:10 am

Surprising? Not really.

But Pixar are asking for waaaaaaaaaay too much, without any consideration for the company who paid for half their movies, marketed them extremely well, and helped put them on the map.

Post by **PatrickvD** » November 9th, 2005, 9:23 am

Jim Hill annoys the heck out of me, he uses the words "supposedly" and "reportedly" every three sentances.

Post by **ShyViolet** » November 9th, 2005, 12:46 pm

I think he just doesn't want people to accuse him of fabricating stuff.

Post by **PatrickvD** » November 9th, 2005, 12:55 pm

ShyViolet wrote:I think he just doesn't want people to accuse him of fabricating stuff.

in other words he made it all up...

lol no seriously, he's annoying. Hardly any of his stories turn out to be true in the end...

Post by **David** » November 9th, 2005, 1:21 pm

Ben wrote:But Pixar are asking for waaaaaaaaaay too much, without any consideration for the company who paid for half their movies, marketed them extremely well, and helped put them on the map.

I'm glad someone agrees with me at last, you have no idea how many other people on other boards are saying that Pixar's terms aren't in the slightest bit unreasonable. If it wasn't for Disney taking such a risk, there would be no Pixar, and for Pixar to turn round and slap them like this is underhand I feel.

Plus correct me if I'm wrong but in the instance of Toy Story wasn't that film FULLY financed by Disney? Also didn't Disney have a large involvement at the story level?

Post by **ShyViolet** » November 9th, 2005, 1:57 pm

I think they did and at one point the Pixar people even wanted to give up on the whole thing. Katzenberg told them they should keep going. (Pixar has said this themselves.)

(*not trying to push the whole: "K resurrected Disney" thing again. This is just what I've heard.*)

Jim Hill Media's blog

Jim Hill article on Pixar future