Up: The Aftermath

Posted by Laura on 6 June, 2009
2 Comments

Where Wall•E fans were prompted to feel defensive of their love of the personality-filled robot and his Apple-like companion, fans of Up are in good company. Since its release on May 26, Up has received almost exclusively positive reviews. RottenTomatoes (RT) lists only a few rotten reviews on their site, so Up achieves a 98% fresh rating. In fact, RT’s consensus on the movie is that it’s “Another masterful work of art from Pixar, Up is an exciting, hilarious, and heartfelt adventure impeccably crafted and told with wit and depth.”

I fully admit that I feel like a bit of a fangirl finding such a positive reception to a movie that comes from one of my favorite places. Up’s commercial appeal has been under scrutiny since before its release even at Cannes, but I think the movie, for what it is, will do just fine. There may not be as many tie-in toys as there would be for a movie like, say, Toy Story (1, 2, or 3), but it is clearly going to sell well on DVD. Pixar only has to find a way to harness the commercial appeal of its characters (and I could think of a few ways that they could if they really needed to), and it’s got a good baseline for this film.

Also telling for Up’s success is its box office numbers so far. The movie has been out for just over one week, and it has grossed over 93 million dollars so far. Its opening weekend (68 million) ranks as the third largest for all ten Pixar films (The Incredibles had the biggest at 70.4 million on opening weekend, and Finding Nemo had 70.2 million). It’s currently over halfway to overtaking Pixar’s lowest grossing film (A Bug’s Life) in the rankings for highest grossing Pixar film. Will it get that title? I don’t know. But as far as appeal goes, Pixar’s got a smash hit on its hands with this one, and I, for one, would love to see Up ascend to new heights of box office gold for Pixar. (Hah, see what I did there?)

I’ve seen Up three times so far – once on opening day, once at a Drive-In coupled with another film, and once in 3-D. It held up to three watches outstandingly, and while I’m done seeing it in the theaters, I can’t wait to see it again. Now, it’s just a matter of waiting for DVD release. (Le’ts hope this one isn’t a fiasco like Wall•E‘’s release was!)

Sources:

Tagged: [ , , , , , , , , , , ]

UP!

Posted by Laura on 29 May, 2009
No comments

Opening day for a movie branded a “children’s film” by our culture is quite a sight to behold. There were lots of kids with not near as many parents, a couple of toddlers and at least one baby (who cried in the middle of the movie but wasn’t taken outside). We settled in and crossed our fingers that the noise would subside after the film actually started. I fully expected the kids to be the problem, but a group of teenagers turned out to be the problem initially. They were loud, giggly and boisterous, which is fine at a dance or even outside, but at a movie is totally inappropriate. Johnathan shushed them, someone in the row behind us did, too, and it took a threat to have them kicked out just as the movie was starting to get them to quiet down.

The initial noise issues aside, I was getting pretty excited about the movie. The short was sweet and well-animated, as all of Pixar’s pre-movie shorts have been to date. There’s not much to say about it, other than that I enjoyed it. I wasn’t able to fully immerse myself as I wanted to do, thanks to the noise coming from people all around. Nobody in that theater seemed to have the same interest in the short as we did. But after the noise died down and the lights fully dimmed, we were ready to fully take in Up for the first time. (Spoilers, coming your way!)

More snark after the jump »

Tagged: [ , , , ]

The “Problem” with Pixar

Posted by Laura on 11 April, 2009
No comments

Toy companies and Wall Street are all up in a tizzy right now over Pixar’s upcoming film Up. I’ve seen article after article down-talking the new film, which at first was receiving a lot of positive buzz. It has only been in the last few days that the real reason behind the turn toward the negative.

What’s sad is that it’s not the plot line that’s under attack, nor the artwork: it’s the commercial appeal. People on the internet are up in arms over Up’s commercial appeal (or lack thereof). The money-obsessed sectors are calling the film “too artsy” and claiming that Disney-Pixar is essentially shooting itself in the foot by releasing a movie with no further commercial appeal outside of the movie theater and DVD sales.

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.

So, the problem is initially claimed to be with the lack of “appealing main characters,” although this argument is quickly forgotten in favor of the more important one: it is not that Up looks like it will inherently be a bad movie, but that there won’t be much tie-in merchandise for stores to market and sell to easily-tempted children (and Pixar-philes).

I suppose I simply don’t follow the logic here. I may not be thinking of what’s best for the businesses when I’m considering this a very dour way to anticipate a movie, the potential for which is as yet undetermined since it doesn’t even come out until next month. Why aren’t we more concerned with the quality of the film itself? There are doubts expressed by some of the articles about whether Pixar can deliver yet another smash hit, but those come secondary; the primary concern is whether Disney will produce enough pointless themed merchandise to appease the toy stores who will probably just end up putting those same toys on clearance in six months time because nobody really can afford to buy them, given the way the economy’s been headed for the last year or more.

I wonder if anyone remembers what it’s like to see an animated feature come out without the need for action figures, stylized doll houses, replicas of items from the movie, seven different video games on every console imaginable and then, of course, the six different DVD versions. Is all of this really necessary? It keeps the coffers of the retail stores padded, but blind consumerism is not what we need right now.

What really seems to be going on is a battle between Disney’s commitment to minimize their product footprint and the mass consumerism that’s been prevalent for the last sixty-plus years. It will be refreshing to see that a movie will be enjoyed for itself, rather than for the gadget-y toys that are produced and mass marketed in the neighborhood Big Box Store.

I’m pleased to see that Bob Iger is defending Disney’s decision regarding the merchandising for this film. It may not have been Disney’s intent to say that they would produce fewer pointless products (instead they are focusing on reducing the emissions and waste associated with the production of those products), but I would love to see a decline in the amount of toys created for the films. They’re neat, for certain, but I don’t think they’re nearly as important as the original product: the movie. That’s what many of the people concerned about Pixar’s upcoming film seem to be forgetting.

The folks at Pixar have always first and foremost endeavored to create a great movie. The commercial appeal hasn’t been something that’s factored into it at any point along the way (though I doubt any company would pass up the opportunity for merchandising if it were purely profitable). I applaud Pixar for continuing to put the pursuit of great films before great profits. Disney-Pixar may be a company, but that doesn’t mean that there can’t be a focus on putting out a great product.

Sources:

Tagged: [ , , , , ]

Weekly Linkspam

Posted by Laura on 7 April, 2009
No comments

Another week, another linkspam. Some interesting things came up this week. I’m assuming the Hannah Montana movie just came out because I know I got inundated by Miley Cyrus news. Anyway, here’s what’s happened this week that’s interesting.

Layoffs at Disney Parks

3-D Releases and Re-Releases

Disney Channel Stars (But Mostly Miley Cyrus)

Everything Else…

And that’s it linkspam-wise for this week!

Tagged: [ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ]

Disney’s Environmental Goals

Posted by Laura on 2 April, 2009
No comments

With the push to “go green” and minimize our impact on the environment, it’s no surprise that Disney has gotten on board with the “green” movement. Disney recently announced that the company plans to reduce electricity use as well as solid waste going to landfils down to their 2006 levels by 2013. According to Disney’s 2008 Corporate Responsibility Report, their plans are to eventually achieve zero waste.

I will say that Disney’s goals in this field are admirable. As such a big company with so much potential for environmental impact – from the rides down to the cups and plates given at the quick service restaurants in the parks, if Disney weren’t making any effort, I could see bad things coming in store for them. The written goals, however, are vague:

  • Zero net direct greenhouse gas emissions from fuels
  • Reduce indirect greenhouse gas emissions from electricity consumption
  • Zero waste
  • Net positive impact on ecosystems
  • Minimize water use
  • Minimize product footprint
  • Inform, empower and activate positive action for the environment

Their aims are big and admirable at their core, but how, in the last few months, has Disney showed a committment to this report? After all, despite the reported impact of their two cruise ships that were already in circulation, they added two more earlier this year. If zero waste is truly the goal, I’d say that zero increase in waste is a good place to start.

How about the “minimize product footprint” item? Does that mean that Disney’s going to cut back on the needless overproduction of their toys? Are we going to stop having yet another round of the “Princesses” in a different scenario and yet more outfits that never appeared in the films? Considering the $800 pen that they’re marketing through D23, I’d say that it’s another instance of increasing a footprint rather than decreasing it. I’m not suggesting that Disney stop producing their toys altogether – I had some Disney merchandise myself as a child, but that doesn’t mean that we need seven different versions of the same character to tempt children (who are somewhat less likely to be environmentally conscious as their adult counterparts anyway) into asking for another Ariel doll to go with the six that they already have.

Compare these contradictory things with Disney’s promise to plant a tree for every ticket sold for ‘Earth’ in its opening week, or their suggestions for making your vacations (especially to Walt Disney World) “green,” it’s hard to tell what the company is actually up to. I hope to see that Disney continues on this path toward economic responsibility and that this isn’t just an attempt at “greenwashing” to appease the environmentally conscious consumers.

Also: If Andrew Stanton was serious about Wall-E’s social commentary being unintended, I only have this to say: Your pants are on fire. The timing is just too coincidental to ignore.

Sources:

Tagged: [ , , , ]

Disney, Kids and Saving Money

Posted by Laura on 1 April, 2009
No comments

“Disney,” “kids,” and “saving money” don’t really seem to be things that go together… ever. Disney’s changing that up with a new attraction that they’re creating for Innoventions at Epcot.  The new attraction will be sponsored by T. Rowe Price, an investments management company and will be called “The Great Piggy Bank Adventure.”

The premise of the attraction will be to teach kids the about “setting goals, saving and spending smartly, staying ahead of inflation, and diversifying investments.” The attraction has been in planning for three years, but I don’t think it could have come at a better time. With the financial sector in turmoil, prices going up and wages going down, it couldn’t be more important for kids (and their parents…) to learn the importance of responsible money management.

It opens in May (tentatively the 19th), so assuming all goes as planned, we’ll be able to check it out when we’re there in September. It’s a great idea. I’m glad to see that Disney’s aware that kids need to be told more than “You must have all toys that we produce ever!” in order to become responsible adults who aren’t drowning in debt.

Sources:

Tagged: [ , , , ]

Weekly Linkspam

Posted by Laura on 31 March, 2009
No comments

Another week, another linkspam. Lots seems to have happened this week. I’ve got a few things up my sleeves to write about, but I’m still coming off of a week of movies, and sleep is more important than writing about Disney. (Sorry, guys.) So, more links!

Disney & Hulu

Disney & YouTube

Walt Disney World Layoffs

Stoneheart

Everything Else…

That’s it for this week!

Tagged: [ , , , , , , , , , , ]

D23: A Second Look

Posted by Laura on 26 March, 2009
No comments

D23 is getting a lot of flack for a perceived lack of “bang” for the consumer’s buck for buying into the club – and rightfully so! Those who would be inclined to buy into the club are already very likely a part of some online community that has probably existed longer than D23 has even been in development. What has been promised as described in the FAQ from the Disney Shopping website leaves much for the dedicated Disney fan to desire. This much is clear: skepticism reigns when it comes to evaluating whether this club will be worth the cost.

But what of the free features? Not everything involved with D23 is a pay-to-play service. In fact, it seems like most of the features seem to be readily available to non-members. From “Ask Dave,” a section in which people can ask questions about anything involved with Disney and “Dave” will answer. These are usually fairly uncommon questions, I’ve noticed. (Or at least, I never thought to ask whether Wayne Brady had spent any time at Pleasure Island.) This is a part of the archives section which has little articles about bits of Disney history, from the parks and the movies, merchandise, etc.

There’s also a news “feed” where posts are made pertaining not only to new information regarding the Disney-related but also to some recent events that have made it to main news sources. Really, the information there isn’t information that wouldn’t be available on any of the pre-existing Disney websites, but what this site does have going for it is officiality. Anything that actually makes it onto a Disney site has to be true, right? For the more casual fan (or one who hasn’t already found an online home in one of the many Disney-themed fan hubs on the internet), I could see this being a beneficial weekly or bi-weekly visit – for someone who wants to keep up on the latest with Disney, but not for the more dedicated fans, or for those who have a community already, the free side of D23 is uneventful. It’s interesting but not ultimately useful.

D23 is still not living up to the hype that Disney created about it in the days before its announcement. I sincerely hope that it will improve with age, or I can’t see this lasting very long.

Tagged: [ , , ]

Weekly Linkspam

Posted by Laura on 24 March, 2009
No comments

Here’s another linkspam! I’d have more interesting things to write about but all of my free time is going to the Cleveland International Film Festival until next week. (I would claim to be sad about this but I am so not! Come check it out if you’re in the area!)

Hong Kong Disneyland Expansion

Other Disney Parks

Race to Witch Mountain

Movies & DVD

Everything Else…

Tagged: [ , , , , , , , , , , ]

Weekly Linkspam

Posted by Laura on 17 March, 2009
No comments

In lieu of a real post, and because not all of these topics would merit rewriting, I thought I might try to do a linkspam once a week or so! So, here’s what’s been going on with Disney this week:

Disney Going Green

Disney & The Economy

Movies, TV & Stage

D23

Everything Else…

Tagged: [ , , , , , ]