Pixar vs. The World
It's no secret that from humble beginnings, Pixar has developed themselves into the worlds premiere animation studio, surpassing even Disney in the eyes of many as the new "gold standard".
So what is the secret to Pixar's success? Well, it's a magical combination of many elements, but looking at movie posters of the top animation studios might give us a clue. Let's start with Pixar's posters, shall we?
Do you notice anything about these posters?
In particular ... do you see anything missing?
Let me give you a hint: "star power". At Pixar, story is king. They are slaves to the cinematic narrative and it is evident in the high quality of their finished products. While some studios chase after the celebrity flavor of the month to voice their movies, Pixar gets the right voices for the job. No one went to see "The Incredibles" because Craig T. Nelson was the voice of Mr. Incredible or "Finding Nemo" because Albert Brooks voice is used for the Marlin, the father fish. Heck, even when Pixar does get big a Hollywood name like Tom Hanks (and there's not many bigger than Mr. Hanks) you don't see it on the posters.
The characters in Pixar films truly do take center stage. In fact, thier "star power" is derived from their previous sucesses. Each film makes mention of the previous on the posters ("From the makers of Toy Story", "From the makers of Bug's Life", etc.)
But other studios treat animated films as vehicles to feature big Hollywood names with 3D window dressing. Just look at the samples of other posters I have sprinkled throughout the text and you will see one "star marquee" after another. Heck, I even found a "Shrek" poster that was the worst example of this sort of gross excess, where the characters portrayed are no bigger than ONE letter in the star's name.
And even when Pixar does use a big name, it is because the actor and character mesh. Can you imagine Woody without Tom Hanks' down home charm? Or Mike Wazowski without Billy Crystal's neurotic delivery? But take a film like "Shark Tale" and you will essentially SEE Will Smith as a fish. You will get caricatures of Woody Allen, Sylvester Stalone and Sharon Stone as "Antz". You will still hear the same characters these actors play all the time, but in new 3D bodies.
The only other studio that I feel comes close to the quality of work Pixar produces is New York based Blue Sky, creators of "Ice Age" and "Robots". But alas, they too feature "marquee" posters, but at least the actors they do get for voices enhance the characters and don't distract from them.
Perhaps it is the fact that Pixar makes it's home near laid back San Francisco and is spared the vain excesses of an L.A. life. Perhaps the Hollywood machine is so trained to chase star power that they have missed what true power is.
The power to entertain above all else.
posted by InkTank at
9:51 AM
53 Comments:
Well, there is still Frozone. But that's true he isn't the main carachter.
And his name isn't featured on the poster. =)
But, I did find ONE Pixar poster with names and it was for Toy Story 2. It had Tom Hanks and Tim Allen listed on the top. But obviously, if you liked the first movie, you would go see the second one. It's not like someone said "You know I hated Toy Story with the blazing intensity of a thousand suns that ... oh wait! Tim Allen was a voice in that movie? Well hell, I GOTTA see the sequel then!"
Shrek 2, marquee poster - $437 Million box office. Nemo, Pixar's biggest success - $339 Million box office. The first Shrek made more than all of the other Pixar flicks.
Before you analyze the reasons one studio is more successful than the rest, you should maybe try justify why you think the studio is the "gold standard". That's highly debatable.
IMHO being "worlds premiere animation studio" you have much more control over the marketing of your movie. Many film makers hated the way their films were marketed once they got handed off to the studio. Look at Dukes of hazzard they marketed with alot of sex appeal. But people who were looking for adult situations were disappointed. Parents didn't bring kids because of the possablity of sex. They killed market for a movie that would have done great in the 9 - 14 market due to hidious marketing.
response for the post about box office: success is not only measured in how much money you make.
nice write up barry, thanks.
Correct Gil.
When I say "Gold Standard" I am not talking about box office success.
There are tons of films that have made mode money than the classic Disney animated films ... but here we are talking about the successful merging of story, character and heart.
I have to agree with Barry and Gil. When i think of 3D animated movies, i can only come up with Pixars and "Shrek".
To me, the fact that they, pixar, are willing to use their own employes as voice actors is a good sign. This isn't people who are just in it for the money. They're giving it their all to bring a story to life. It's possible in entertainment, quite simply because the product benefits of the care that has been put into it.
I never actually thought about it to be honest.. I guess subliminally i always knew this but yeah.
Well voiced.
Yeah, see, though the thing is- the Shrek example destroys your own point. Cause Shrek is as good an animated movie as anything Pixar has ever done; so obviously big names are not the drawback you seem to be suggesting.
Was Shrek good? Yes it was....but so was the first one.
Alot of people miss Barrys point. This is HIS opinion, and one I share. I have lost faith in the movie industry of late, and only recently have I been willing to watch them at theaters again.
Pixar does a beautiful job with their characters and PLOT. They dont depend on a star to carry their movie.
Just because Shrek was a killer at the box office was not because of its stars. I will admit to laughing out loud, and planned to see it without ever seeing the poster. I saw it because I wanted to.
Still liked Finding Nemo and Monsters Inc. more.
And Pixars outtakes? Absolutely hilarious.
Entertainment is of the highest value. I find the local theater more entertaining than hollywood movies. But then again, being a stage actor myself, I know most of the actors on the stage. Hilarious people that know how to make any play a good time. For actors, directors, stage hands, costume people, and audiance alike.
Ahh, but while Shrek was funny, and did well in the theatres, it garnered most of it's humor from pop culture references.
The plot itself was ok, but wasn't a truly heartfelt film. Don't get me wrong, I liked Shrek, but looking at that poster just reminds me that in Hollywood, movies are made by committe and marketing is king.
Thank goodness. Thanks Barry for saying what I'm sure a lot of us were thinking. I liked Shrek and Shrek 2, but in no way does it compare to the Pixar films. It just sorta irks me when an animated film has to "whore" itself out to marketing.. or even a regular film (I, Robot and The Island come to mind as recent big offenders).
I don't want to pay money for a movie to watch advertisements.
Hmm. I might be a statistical outlier here, but I avoided shrek because of its marketing. I lumped it into exactly what Barry's described: marketing via names. I almost always avoid these, and I frequently admit that I'm judging a book by its cover when I do this. Certainly you can't judge all books by their covers, but you can get a pretty accurate idea there.
Had my best friend not convinced me to see it anyway, I never would've seen the thing. If you have to use the star's name to sell the movie, you're probably selling a crappy movie. If you don't have to, it's probably best not to.
Sadly, this appears to work as a moneymaker; middle-class americans will flock to well-known names. I'll be happy when the "Simpson" surname describes only little yellow-skinned cartoon characters.
Well-stated, Barry; maybe hollywood will hear you. Pixar pwns!
WOW... I am of the opposite feeling to yours Barry, well maybe not opposite as much as... well.. I disagree. This is coming from a now 35 year old who is happy he has kids so people will stop looking at him funny for going to see these kinds of shows... alone.. lol
Please do not get me wrong, it isn't as though I do not like the Pixar films, quite the opposite, many of them I loved.
Finding Nemo is one of my favorites, Dora speaking whale alone is worth seeing the movie :) Other than TS2 and The Uncredibles I loved them all.
The story concept for Incredibles was actually pretty cool, much the way Monster Inc was, but they just didn't really pull it off as well. ho hum IMHO
I was actually disgusted that it won over Shrek 2.
Big Names???? who care....
Marketing???? who cares....
Pop Culture for the laughs???? who cares...
It sounds as though you are taken in/ fooled by such ploys from admittedly movies like Sharks Tale that just was a waste of time to watch... even on DVD.. except for a few select moments.
You shouldn't be offended but such actions of people who are in the buisness of spinning things in such way to maximize their potential profit, that is, unless you are the one being spun.
I know I was miffed when I went to see movies where the only good parts were the ones they used for commericals to get my there in the first place, all that did was make me stay at home more.
I loved Ice Age, and both Shreks simply because they were amazing. I am not going to make some cheap excuse that a friend dragged me to see a VERY Teh Funna movie, and because of that poor soul who caused you to laugh so much because he was apparently sucked in by the "Big Names" propoganda and brought you there.
Maybe it is because I don't "get into" things like names or producers or what ever, unless its a huge name I don't know who people are talking about because I don't find that interesting, so maybe ignorance is bliss..
I saw the comercials for Shrek, the same way I did for Finding Nemo, and for both I said... "Now that looks like it is worth seeing....Hey Kids, want to go see a movie with Dad?"
Names are more of a "Hey Neat...so and so did the voice"
At first I thought the article was directed at something I don't like, selling a movie animated or not, with big names and weak plot, but comments like gold standard and quality of work, turns where it looked like you were aiming with an arrow into a brush wildly slapped about.
I think I understand your intent, but disagree with the way it was delivered.
Big Names + Weak Plot(story) = teh suxor
Big Names or small names + Strong Plot (story) = Teh Roxor ...lol
Hmmm, no I think we mostly agree on the points. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
I was just pointing out that typical "hollywood" animated fare tends to focus a lot of it's marketing (and unforutantely sometinmes, content) on the names of the stars.
Where as Pixar relies on the strength of thier ideas and thier subsequent fullfillment of those ideas to draw a crowd.
I've never been taken in by big names (hey, being an aspiring animator, I have to see them all ... the good and the bad) and I don't know many people who would be fooled by such marketing ploys.
But the studio heads apparently feel it is a necessity, when their efforts could be better spent elsewhere.
LOL... you people really don't understand they buying public do you?
People watch movies out of habit... there is no magic formula to get them to waste $8 on a flick. Heck, the biggest joke in Hollywood is the fact that the public will actually go see a lame movie just because it is lame.
Don't put Pixar on such a high horse... you really don't want them there... any studio forced to prove themselves again and again, will... any studio which is allowed to rest on its laurels, will.
If you want to judge a company on its true motives, don't look at the movie posters or ticket sales, look at the merchandising... any movie done solely for the purpose of telling a good story would not spend one red cent on merchandising. Before Pixar got into the feature film business they racked up quite a number of Oscars without even selling a single trinket along the way. Oh how times have changed... even at Pixar.
LOL... it could be that you weren't clear and I didn't take your point the way it was intended. :) Your little reply made your intentions clearer to me than the whole post.
It is rather disconcerning that they do indeed feel that a name or "popular" voice alone will make an animated movie. I understand now that it is the "gross excess" they market that voice to draw people in is what you are speaking of.
Yes, it appears that we do agree :)
I guess I am more forgiving of such practices for animation than I am about "normal" movies is because they have a "larger" hurdle to over come with the general population.
As a whole, they are not like myself and you , were we don't need the "star factor" to want to see animation, but where as most are not that inclined to see a "cartoon".
The Big name thing, I think you would have to agree is to get people who would not normally even think about let alone the possibility of going to see it.
So perhaps I look at it as... take the bad for the greater good :) Unless of course they use such a ploy to bring people in to see something that will turn them off from future movies....
Always the one to think motives are always for the good things..... I should start being more of realist :)
PMiles, you yourself have to realize that Pixar was under the Mouse for their previous films. They had little choice but to give in to corporate pressure and advertise the hell out of it.
It's either Cars or the one after that where they will be flying solo. That will be the true test of their abilities I believe.
And even though it has yet to be mentioned, but master film maker Haiyo Miyazaki's Studio Ghibli hasn't relied on star power either for their movies and the Oscar-winning flick "Spirited Away" made some serious money. I am refering of course to "Titanic" amounts of money, which 'Spirited Away" surpassed and then some, and that was in Japan alone.
I don't agree with pmiles when he says a good company won't spend a red cent on merchandising. I think its irrelevant to the argument. I would have issues with a company that made movies in order to sell merchandising, put pixar licencing out Woody or Buzz is simply good business sense. It also means that with the extra revenue they are under a little less pressure to get the next movie out, and so can continue the good practice we have all benefitted from so far.
And on the flip side of the big marquee issue, who remembers the commercials for "Dumb and Dumberer"(sp) and how they went to such lengths to conceal the identities of the 2 leads (who were NOT Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels).
As for the Shrek series, I think it is quite simply meant to be a different sort of movie to a pixar movie. The pixar movies are stand alone stories, in a world of their own (allowing for sequels of course), whereas the Shrek movies are meant as light satire, poking fun at fairy tales, and pop culture at the same time. I can safely say the marquee didn't attract me to shrek, there isn't a person in there that would compel me to go to the cinema, some might even keep me away, but I went to see the movies anyway because I thought the style and story looked good (and it was my enjoyment of shrek that brought me back for shrek 2, and will all the way to shrek 7)
Ultimately it depends on what you want to see a movie for ... if you're just looking for laughs Shrek is great ... if you're looking for story and character Shrek falls far short of the Pixar films (imo) ... Shrek (and Shrek II) were funny movies, yes, but they relied on 'star appeal' to bring in big box office , not great story or characters.
Movies, even live action ones, are much better when written for story and character and then well cast (IE finding the best actors for the parts) rather then cast and then written. Too often Hollywood is more interested in writting the next big movie for [Insert Big Box Office Star Here] rather than actually comming up with a great story with stong and interesting characters.
Jay, well you can use the argument that it was all Disney doing the merchandising... but I would be willing to wager that whoever ends up marketing Pixar films in the future will continue this trend.
It's one thing to make a movie THEN sell trinkets... it's quite another thing to create a movie for the sole purpose of SELLING trinkets. Studios do not need to sell trinkets to recoup the cost of production... if the movie is well liked and within it's own budget, it will recoup the cost of production and then some. Movies like Shrek 2, 3... etc are in the business of selling trinkets... they know the public wants more donkey and puss... so off they go to provide a market for their new trinkets. The real money for these films is not in the movie itself, but in the selling of merchandise and/or the licensing characters for advertising. They know they will recoup the cost of the movie (they wouldn't have made it if they didn't think they would), they are mostly concerned with the merchandising sales... hence their desire to get the merchandise out on the shelves well before the flick ever hits the streets.
Shrek may have been advertised by the big names, but it was just as equally advertised as a send up of disney movies. it was an option to disney. that, i think, attracted as many people as sway, eddie murphy and cameron diaz.
did people watch the second shrek because of who was in it? no one else can boast such a successful sequel. i shudder though to think how many people will go to see shrek 3 just to laugh at justin timberlakes as a young king arthur.
i also find it distracting that animators draw the characters to look like the voice actor. the voice is merely used to give life to the character.
i wonder how many people have seen spirit, stallion of the cimarron? it was a wonderful movie, but very little spoken language.
well i reckon you've got a good point Barry. i'd never seen that shrek poster before though, the ones i've seen are more like the pixar ones. i really enjoyed the pixar movies, but then, i enjoyed shrek too, i never realised it wasn't a pixar movie
Ya know, I've never even noticed it before. Didnt Pixar do the animation for Shrek though?
All in all though, the quality of Pixar's films has been unmet by competitors. I think they keep getting better.
I guess I'm not the only moviegoer who's noticed the absence of gargantuan actor names on Pixar's ads. This doesn't mean that the storytelling of non-Pixar feature-length animation is horrid (as a few people have seem to taken this article thingy); it means that Pixar chooses to advertise story over cast. They're confidant enough to think that people will want to see their movie because it has a great story, not because a few immensely popular actors have been paid to star in it.
This can also be applied to some extent to the computer game industry, which I hope to break into at some point in the future. 'Oh my god, Super Dude 8 has normal mapping AND real-time displacement mapping, and five-hundred more bloody sprite particles that appear randomly when I shoot stuff! And look at this new gimmicky feature! Darn, I'm going to sell my dated copy of Star Saga that runs off the Quake 3 engine now...Oh, I guess i shouldn't have sold Star Saga because Super Dude 8 seems to use a plot that had been found written in the sand by the random thrashings of a dying sea turtle.'
See, I hope that someday gaming graphics will become so advanced that the industry will no longer be able to as easily push a title based on new developments in eye candy. Instead, they'll have to focus on building a unique visual and audio experience, backed by solid gameplay and a firm storyline.
I suppose one should ask this question... why have a Tom Hanks do the voice of a character at all? I mean some of the characters in Pixar flicks are voiced by the animators themselves. Is the character any less successful? They choose the voice actor for a reason, and it's not always because they are "right" for the part... there is marketing involved... they know the public knows who these actors are whether they are marqueed or not. Just because their name is not prominent on the marque doesn't mean they are not playing on the star power of the actors.
There will always be those people who watch a film because so and so is in it, or it was directed by this person or that, or it is about this or that subject matter. Sequels exist because they are familiar... you want to see more donkey or speilberg or obi wan stuff. Marketers play on knowing that those who aren't as interested in such nonsense will still watch the flick even though its marketing is directed to specific demographic.
And lastly, lest we forget, Pixar's movie posters always state prominently something to the affect...
"From the Academy Award-Winning Creators of..."
That is no different than selling Cameron Diaz as a reason why you should go see a flick.
Actually I'd rather not see any more Obi Wan crap ... as the last 3 movies have been just that ... Crap. I've seen better scripts in a 1st year script writting course ... And while I made the mistake of seeing Episode I in the theater it was the last one I paid for (Borrowed a friends copy of the Episode II DVD before he ebayed it and only went to Episode III because I won free tickets ... and other than a few good special effects it wasn't worth the price (free))
I'll give you that Pixar sells themselves ... but then again they do that because they know that the audience knows that it means that they can expect good animation and a great story.
"I'll give you that Pixar sells themselves ... but then again they do that because they know that the audience knows that it means that they can expect good animation and a great story."
That would be an assumption that Pixar hopes that you would infer. That's what marketing is all about, getting the consumer to make judgements based on how they package the product.
Try releasing a Toy Story sequel, only this time don't call it Toy Story, call it 5 Fat Men on a Bus. None of the familiar characters are show in it's advertising, only in the movie itself. Pixar markets it under a new name... Foosball Enterprises. Would you go see the movie not knowing that it is a Pixar flick or that it is was a Toy Story sequel? That is the power of marketing. You can turn a dud into a hit merely by convincing the public that it is going to be great. 90% of all Hollywood films would never even be released if good story or quality this or that was all that you need to make a buck.
While I absolutely share Barry's point of view, and agree more heart goes into the work put out by Pixar, I have to think if I was in the position of creating the posters and/or advertising for these films when the producer has paid Millions for Smith, Myers, Lopez, Diaz, or whomever. Would I put names all over my art? You're damned right I would. Sure, it wasn't my choice to hire these people and create a 3D version of Will Smith dancing around in a fish suit, but if the $$$ was paid, then I think the art has to be skewed to boost the celebrity ego. Who knows, maybe it's in the celeb contact. *shrug* Either way, in one way or another I'd be inclined to line up the names no matter how big or how small, BUT they would be thrown into the mix somehow.
First of all, great post... but I'm not sure if anyone else mentioned this.... but I think Antz is Dreamworks? Not Pixar?
WHOOPS! Misread the meaning of that part regarding Antz and Shark Tale. Ignore my previous post!
Hey Barry:
Longtime fan from the comic, first time poster, blahblahblah.
Helluva crowd of opinions you gotta wrestle here. Better you than me, mate.
I liked your write up, and I think you made a good point, even though a lot of the comments lead me to believe that a significant portion of your readership didn't, uh, get it.
cheers.
First of all: Pixar needs to markets their films and they also occasionally use a celebrity voice. how would they make any money if they didn't market atall? it's no problem to me that they do, because the movies they deliver are top notch entertainment imo.
Most celebrity actors are celebrities because they're good (or should be). They are the elite of what they do: getting into character. There is only a problem when a celebrity is chosen to do a voice because the person is a celebrity. If the voice matches the character it is meant to portray, all is well.
The bottom line the way i see it: Celebrities OR studio names shouldn't be the criteria for seeing a movie.
i think this was a great post, and i agree with it in so many ways and on so many levels.
there's no doubt that, whilst most all films discussed were enjoyable, pixar ones, like the incredibles and finding nemo, had more plot, more development, more substance. shrek, whilst amusing, definitely has pop culture references to carry it most of the way.
very well written, barry; i thank you.
It's rather interesting, too, that Disney used to have that tendancy. I mean, does anyone remember who plaid the voice of Snow White? Or the Tramp? Even in Lion King, who played Simba? You might remember it if you were a big fan, but if you look at the poster, nobody would see in large print that the movie had a cast including:
Matthew Broderick
Rowan Atkinson
Whoopi Goldberg
Jeremy Irons
and most impressivly
James Earl Jones
That should tell you that the people playing the part, while lending incredible life to characters that were created, were not banking on their own names to sell the film, but of a story and incredible artwork.
THAT is the difference between marketing and moviemaking.
Disney isn't really in the same situation as Pixer and other animated studios.
Disney's HUGE. Their name makes any expencive actors excessive. This might not apply much to their earlier works though.
Unlike Pixar, Disney only makes movies explicitly for kids. Kids don't care about stars, or atleast to my knowlage they don't. Having stars do the voices in an animated movie made for kids won't make a diffrense.
Also every country will dub the movies due to children not speaking english. Thus the voices which were initially chosen will only be featured in (most of) America and Great Britain. Ofcourse there is alway a dvd version with the original voices but that's not where the money is made.
Ok, while I do agree with the above post about Disney just being this juggernaut of a studio, and that people will see the new flicks just because they are Disney, I think I agree with Pmiles here in saying that they market it in a way (these days especically) that caters to those that recognize the name doing the voice. If you'll remember most of the 80's and early 90's stuff didn't have big names. Aladdin (exception being Robin Williams), The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beats... I don't recall them using the names to push the movie. But now you can bet your bottom dollar that they are doing it with ferver. Especially SKG Dreamworks, as Barry pointed out, with Shrek it was Mike Meyers doing the same Scottish accent he's done in every other movie since SNL and SIMAAM. Sure it's funny, but it isn't exactly breaking new ground for him. It was a safe bet for the studio to choose him when they did to replace Farley after his death.
All in all, yes Pixar market their movies, but not in the whorish way that other studios do. I think they show great tact in being more subtle about it.
You do realize that it is Disney that is marketing Pixar movies and not Pixar, right? That's the reason why Disney and Pixar struck a deal in the first place, to unburden themselves from the whole marketing frenzy so that they could focus on movie making. Pixar is also the baby in the group when it comes to movie making and marketing... all the other players have been in the game for a while, perhaps not in CG, but in the business of marketing films. It will be interesting to see what the company does once they go full force into their 2 movies a year production schedule... the rules will have changed. If sales drop off (which apparently they have according to the recent loss reports on DVD sales), all gloves will be off in terms of how they market their flicks. Pixar is just a junior in the film making world... everyone starts out with idealistic ideas... time changes them into more realistic ideals.
"Also every country will dub the movies due to children not speaking english. Thus the voices which were initially chosen will only be featured in (most of) America and Great Britain. Ofcourse there is alway a dvd version with the original voices but that's not where the money is made."
I would point out here that i've been to see movies in 4 or 5 countries round Europe while on holiday (and with the whole of Europe and the USA you have the lions share of where the money from these films is going to come from) and in my experience the only country that routinely dubs movies is France. Germany, Denmark and Sweden all had the original voices with subs when I went to see films, and the comments from my foreign friends suggested that this was normal in those countries, int eh cinema at least.
I live in Denmark and yes, you can go to the cinema and see disney movies with the original english but the children, for whom the movies are made, will go to the dubbed showing. I havn't spotted a disney DVD which doesn't include the original english dub as well as the danish.
My pointe was just that it wouldn't be favorable for Disney to hire celebrities to do the voices for their kids movies.
On a side note, here is a link to a presentation made at this year's games developers conference, europe. The presentation is about creativity mostly, but skip through to the section about how movies would sound if marketed the way games are. You'll need software capable of running ppt file (e'g. microsoft powerpoint)
http://www.gdceurope.com/conference/presentations/marko_hein.ppt
Pixar is like Blizzard. Everything they touch turns to gold.
Of course, they don'thave a monopoly on good movies - I liked the first Shrek and Ice Age - but they are consistently reliable. If they put something out, you know it will be good.
The bottom line is this ... in marketing of anything, and espcially movies, the people marketing the film are going to play up the strengths .... if they are playing up the 'star power' then that means it is what they are primarily relying on to get people to see the movie, if they are advertising (as with Disney/Pixar) the studio that produced it then they are banking on the history of successful movies that they have produced in the past.
Neither is a guarentee of a great or even good movie, technically ... in fact nothing that is produced by a marketing department is any guarentee that a movie is worth even the price at a $1.00 theater ... this includes posters, trailers, 'making of' shorts, etc .... in fact to a degree the more a film is marketed there's a higher chance that it's NOT worth seeing and they are trying to build a lot of hype to pull people into theaters to get a big opening knowing that it will probably fall off quickly (this gets into to distributer/theater box office deals and the like).
Personally I think that Pixar has done a great job of producing consistantly great animated films ... I will be most interested to see what they produce once they are out from under the wing of Disney.
unfortunlty he is missing something the original advertisement for toy story did push the names in the tv commercials even so much as to point out the pig was from cheers. Monsters inc had a tie in to the actors in a freinds episode that aired 1 month before the move came out. I love pixar and what they did but they also did a big pull on star power when getting started. I am pleased that over time they were able to move away from it but they did use it.
Thanks to my wonderful school, I did a short internship/coffeeboy experience at Pixar and it was quite the atmosphere. EVERYTHING inside was Incredibles this or that, since that was the movie of the time. I found out for each of their movies they redecorate the interior with advertising and art related to the movie. All the old movie stuff is basically stored in the back of the building until it fills up, then is donated... only happened once so far.
I guess it hasn't been brought up directly, but Pixar not only focuses on the plot and characters, but they advertise the hell out of the fact that they focus on that. Pixar hasn't gotten their reputation of making stellar movies solely by making stellar movies. They have made sure to plant that message in most mediums of advertising they use. You can see it in all the advertising crap they put up on their walls... and the 20 foot tall statue they have by the front desk as you walk inside.
Pixar is just as much an advertising juggernaut as other movie theaters, they just take a different (and more subtle) approach to it. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as they don't get lulled into complacency by their own hype.
i like you blog title ! :D
i thought your blog was cool and i think you may like this cool Website. now just Click Here
Well said my friend. :)
This seems to be more a matter of differing philosophies, rather than a case study of what creates a "successfully marketed" film. I completely agree with you, and with the way Pixar markets their films. They obviously do it the right way through and through, from the production to the premiere. However, being familiar with a number of people who work at both studios, I know that the level of talent and artistry run parallel when it comes to those who actually put these films together. The only difference is that Pixar's heads of staff have a better understanding of who the artists are, while Dreamworks is like a well-meaning parent that just doesn't quite "get" their kids. Either way, both studios make good product that sells. It's just as an artist and fellow craftsman, I feel that Pixar's films are superior. The market, unfortunately, doesn't always reflect that, and therefore arguments about either studio's marketing decisions can get really sticky. In advertising, it's always difficult to put a finger on what exactly it is that works. The one thing I do know is that should Pixar continue to hold true to its integrity, they will be around far longer than any of the other studios, if not always being the number one box office contender. Seeing as Steve Jobs is the head of Pixar, and seeing that he's already run the brand integrity marathon with Apple, I think Pixar's longevity is pretty secure. In that regard, they are definitely doing things right.
Just a general comment. Although I enjoyed SHREK and SHREK II, they seem to embody the tedious approach to 'comedy' that focuses on parody. So they PARODY Disney in SHREK I and Hollywood in SHREK II. Big deal...it hardly takes a comic Einstein to concoct humourous dig at either entity. THE INCREDIBLES shows elements of lapsing into lazy parody mode. I didn't like that film because of its endless regurgitation of super-hero lore and 1950s kitsch. Boring.
The new WALLACE AND GROMIT film, although clever and enjoyable, also lapses into genre parody in the last two acts. Is this the Dreamworks influence? It's like there's two films fused like Brundle-fly into one.
This is a fantastic page! I am studying animation and I'm writing a paper on movie posters (probably Pixar or similar) and have been looking around for inspiration, argument and discussion just like this.
Unfortunately the academic world doesn't seem to explore this field as much as I'd like.
Does anyone know of any other sites / blogs / books / articles etc etc like this?
I'm after debate or analysis of animation movie posters.
Post a Comment
<< Home