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:
