>Can you imagine someone pitching Up to the Disney Animated
>Studios? "It's about an octogenarian..." "PASS! Next?"
>
>Can you imagine someone pitching WALL-E to the Disney Animated
>Studios? "It begins after the end of the world at the hands of
>a corporation..." "PASS! Next?"
>
>It's clear that Pixar's FIRST priority is storytelling. It's
>very commercial, yes... but their films are primarily about
>intelligence and wit.
>
>I mean, look at Disney's reaction to the splendid Princess and
>the Frog. They changed their title of the next film from
>Rapunzel to Tangled, because they clearly thought having
>"Princess" in the title hurt the box office... despite the
>fact that since the turn of the century, Princess and the Frog
>made more at the box office than any Disney Animated Film
>since Lilo and Stitch... and it did it during the peak of an
>economic recession.

Those aren't the numbers I have. I have "The Princess and the Frog" making $104.4 mil in US and $267 mil worldwide, which is less than Bolt and Chicken Little, which both made more here and abroad.

It's made more than any Disney *2D* film since Lilo & Stitch, but that's not saying much when the films in question are "Treasure Planet", "Brother Bear", and "Home on the Range".

I still think changing the name of "Rapunzel" to "Tangled" is the wrong way to go about it. The film's lack of financial success is less due to anything wrong with it or its title and more due to being released a week before Avatar and two weeks before Alvin 2. Katzenberg was smart enough to move "How to Train Your Dragon" - which was supposed to come out at about the same time as "The Princess and the Frog" - to March.

>
>They're not big picture, at all, and they're surprisingly out
>of touch with what Disney used to be about. They don't care
>that they made a good film... they care about the amount of
>money they make from it. We talked about this a bit in regard
>to their decision to make a new Winnie the Pooh film-- even if
>it makes no money at the B.O., its merchandise will bring the
>company a profit.

This is true, but the problem is the merchandising money is going into a separate division of the corporation than the ticket sales, so you have a drop/hit in profits on one side for a rise on the other. While it's all going to the same company, there still would be a negative effect on what movies are made, how many movies are made, and who in Studio Entertainment gets to keep a job.

>
>I had the concern that Pixar might be turning that direction
>with the announcements of Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 (Cars 2 being
>absolutely motivated by the enormous popularity of the
>merchandise)... but Toy Story 3 was so good that it
>immediately leads me to assume that they will have a strong
>intelligent story for Cars 2.
>
>Look at the points you made. Disney Animation Studios has
>unions, salaries, and a lavish facility. Pixar is content with
>what they have, because they know window dressing and monetary
>concerns distract a studio from what truly matters-- the
>story.
>

True.