DreamWorks Animation’s last week release of How To Train Your Dragon included the deployment of Viking ships full of Dragon merchandise in over 2500 WalMarts worldwide and Happy Meal toys at McDonalds. As part of promotions leading up to its release, DWA and Paramount also negotiated a first of its kind partnership with The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America to create a special Dragon Training badge (which of course required scouts to watch an advanced screening so they could name and identify at least three dragons from the film). This isn’t the first and surely won’t be the last time that major retailers, manufacturers, and production companies team together to squeeze as much money out of a single idea as they can.
But at least DreamWorks Animation has produced a non-sequel film, which is rare in these days, that has also brought technological innovations and much positive critical attention. However, when the attractive potential of auxiliary markets out-performs the desire to retain artistic integrity, we’ll continue to see films like Cars 2 released solely for consumers to drive their way to WalMart instead of parking themselves in the movie theater.
Pixar has established itself as an animation company that releases only one feature film a year, that is a compelling, original story, which has earned them an astounding 24 Academy Awards from only ten films. And of all their critically acclaimed successes, Cars, the only film to receive less than a 90% rating on RottenTomatoes with a C-rating of 75%, will extend its franchise with a sequel in the summer of 2011. Worse yet, this film was also their poorest performance in the box office in over ten years, leading many movie fans to wonder what the motivation behind the production really is, and what happened to Pixar's originality?
Follwing the Cars release in June of 2006, Disney Consumer Products reported that “Cars is recording 10 to 1 more retail volume than Finding Nemo at the same point in its release.” In fourth quarter reports later that year, Disney’s chief executive Robert Iger promised investors “we expect to see a holiday boost for Cars merchandise, which has been one of our biggest lines of the year, with retail sales around $1 billion." In an interview last year once Cars 2 had been announced, Iger explained that he conceived of the sequel while still promoting the original film on a worldwide tour – this, coincidentally, was when those first reports of '10 to 1 retail volume' were coming in.
It’s strictly business when a production company signs licensing and merchandising deals to get more promotion and marketing, or even to make more money from auxiliary markets, but it’s downright lazy and manipulative when they depend on these contracts instead of retaining their own artistic integrity. The kind of integrity that would prevent them from making a sequel to a film where three actors for five of the characters’ voices have all died - the writer of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, Joe Ranfit, and legendary performers Paul Newman and George Carlin. Whether they're re-cast or written-out, don't worry too much over this slap in the face to real artists, because Larry The Cable Guy is still around to reprise his role.
Coming to theaters near you next summer, your kids’ favorite car toy Lightning McQueen will venture outside the country for the first time. This international racing adventure, that has already encountered lots of story problems and re-writes, will lead him to encounter a vast array of new cars whose limited edition toys will also soon be available for purchase. Also next summer, look for films based off the board game Battleship and the ViewMaster toy. And summer of 2012, in Pixar’s third consecutive year releasing a summer sequel, look for Monsters Inc. 2 along with Stretch Armstrong and Legos movies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I enjoyed reading your post. It's definitely an overarching topic I've considered previously and it certainly is especially interesting how such toys are marketed.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have to say I would feel guilty if I didn't tell you how great your title is.
While being owned by a large Corporation like Disney has provided Pixar all the resources they need to put out absolutely spectacular films (Wall-E's my personal favorite), there are always drawbacks when art is dependent on big businesses and vice versa. The artists, driven by their passion, are motivated intrinsically to produce high quality products, while the businesses have an obligation to make as much money as possible. These contradictory responsibilities have the potential to jeopardize the creative processes necessary for artists to be successful.
ReplyDeleteOne such problem is when developers are forced to release a products before they are ready. This is a huge problem, especially when dealing with animated movies and videogames, which suffer from unpredictable development cycles due to the nature of computer programming. This means that deadlines are often not met regardless of the sincere efforts of the artists. Businesses whose organizational structure does not take into consideration so much variability, are put in a predicament that forces the artists to either release their products before their fully complete or postpone the release date. Either way, the business is losing money, so decision makers must determine whether jeopardizing the integrity of the art is worth a prompt release team, or if its better to let the process take its course and release the product when its ready.
The other issues addresses in this scenario is taking away artists ability to create original content. For businesses, sequels are low-risk ventures with proven market value. They take less time to develop since many of the elements involved have already been established. This, however, limits new market growth and has the potential to frustrate artists who appreciate freedom and the opportunity to produce new original content. This can create dissent within organizations when the creative minds' opportunities are limited and they feel as though they are simply the pawns of a bureaucracy.
These things considered, even though Cars 2 has corporate art written all over it, Pixar's reputation keeps me optimistic that this may very well turn out to be one of those few sequels superior to the original. Pixar holds itself to high standards and certainly does not want to ruin its notoriety by releasing mediocre films. They have the opportunity to improve upon the failures of Cars and capitalize on the rare opportunity at a second chance at success.
With the decorated credentials of Pixar, I feel obligated to show a little faith that their effort to rejuvenate life into a dead franchise will be a success. If this is what they have to do periodically to give them the resources to create more great original films which might not receive the commercial recognizance they deserve, then so be the nature of for-profit art. I just hope that Disney gives its most successful studio enough freedom to protect the integrity of Pixar.
Really nice post. I feel it really ties in nicely to the shameful barrage of 3D movies that have been flooding the movie trailers nowadays. It is dangerous when art, in any form, becomes simply a tool to make money. Obviously these movie executives want to make money, but it's a shame when the movie itself lacks the creativity and imgination that "most" moviegoers expect to see. In the case of children, the topic gets even more convoluted because they are the most easily swayed demographic. (That and teenage girls that will flock to see chick flicks even if the directors literally filmed the same movie with a different cast.)
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, as a Fine Arts Minor and someone who had a close family friend who worked for Pixar, I know that they definitely treat their movies with respect. The process they go through creating and developing characters is stunning. I've heard from my friend that the animation teams even purposely give themselves really difficult challenges (like having to animate every one of Sully's fur hairs in Monster's Inc.) just to drive up the overall quality of the movie. Thus I feel that even though the heads of the companies might have ulterior motives, those doing the hard work on the film will most likely see this as a personal challenge to better themselves and correct the mistakes. =)
I agree with Tiffany. Filmmakers do just try to to make a big buck. Frankly, I am so tired of 3d movies. I really don't enjoy them. 3D, for the most part, doesn't add anything to the film, but I can see why they make movies 3D (the tickets cost about $16, which is sure to turn into box office gold). However, I feel like the film merchandise that comes out after every movie is not really the responsibility of the filmmakers. It is the marketing people who try to do their best to get little kids to come and see their movies. Just because there is an explosion of merchandise at McDonalds and Walmart does not make the movie bad or the filmmakers bad people.
ReplyDeleteI do think it is kind of sad how major corporations market to children. Children, at such a young age, are bombarded with messages in the media and automatically buy into this whole consumer culture that Americans have created. Probably the first recognizable symbol for a child is either the mickey mouse ears or the McDonald's golden arches. Essentially, I do think there should be some regulation in how exactly companies are able to market. These 360-like deals where repeated marketed show up everywhere is obviously a lucrative financial benefit but what about the social ramifications and effects on the children? That's probably a more gripping consequence that people should focus on.
ReplyDeleteThis is less about the filmmakers and the "art" of the film than it is about creating a brand. Despite the fact that "How to Train Your Dragon" was an original idea and all of the subsequent ancillary revenue generated is a result of the film's popularity, kids movies have and always will be seen as commodities. Would you be able to tell me when the last family film to be nominated for an Academy Award was?
ReplyDeleteYou also mention how Dreamworks Animation rarely makes films that aren't sequels. This is simply not the case. Since 2000, Dreamworks Animation has released numerous original, non-sequel films such as Kung Fu Panda, Monsters vs. Aliens, Bee Movie, Megamind, and How to Train Your Dragon. I wouldn't call this a rarity.