There's been a lot of text devoted to why Ratatouille didn't do better at the box office. Despite glowing reviews, it struggled to make $200 million domestically, and is the third Pixar flick to make progressively less money since 2003's Finding Nemo.
Pixar blames Disney Marketing for what it calls a lacklustre promotion for the film, Disney Marketing says "You handed us a movie about a rat!" Analysts claim that Ratatouille couldn't do well in a sequel-filled summer. And it goes on . . .
What is "Brand Fatigue?"
Jim Hill has a new theory: Pixar suffers from what he calls "brand fatigue." Here's how it goes: after 12 years atop the CGI animation heap, moviegoers are accustomed to Pixar making great movies. It's no longer "Look at this great new film from Pixar! Wow!" it's "Pixar released another great movie. Yawn."
Ratatouille also came after a series of movies like Over the Hedge, Open Season, Doogal and Barnyard featuring cute, talking animals. Some people, including director Brad Bird, feel that hurt the flick.
"I think we . . . have been . . . a victim of a lot of . . . films that came out before us that just have a bunch of jabbering, wise-cracking practically interchangeable animals," Bird told Time Out London's Wally Hammond. " . . . We’ve had the greatest reaction ever from people who have gone to see (Ratatouille), but the reaction to seeing it we’ve found surprising. And I think it’s partially down to that rack of animal films."
History Repeating: A Disney Animator's Perspective
"Pixar now finds itself in the exact same position that we were in back in the mid-to-late 1990s," an anonymous Disney animator told Hill. ". . . Each film was . . . compared to the pictures that had proceeded (sic) it . . . If that film didn't make as much money as The Lion King did . . . Well, the press . . . said that it had failed to meet the studio's expectations.
"And it was stories like that that then allowed all of those creative VPs to start messing with our movies . . . Which -- in the end -- is what wound up making the films that Feature Animation was making back then even worse."
The DVD Factor
Pixar's films have always done well on DVD, and Ratatouille will be no exception. Pixar is assembling a catalogue that will sell well for years to come. Thanks to home video, Disney has also made tons of cash from theatrical flops like Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty. But this could be a double-edged sword.
". . . people were really looking forward to seeing Ratatouille," an anonymous Pixar veteran told Hill. "But because of a number of factors . . . ticket prices, gas prices, a very competitive summer at the multiplex -- a lot of people . . . opted instead to wait for the Ratatouille DVD.
" . . . we'll probably have the exact same problem with WALL-E," the Pixar staffer continues. "That picture will also get great reviews and do well domestically for a few weeks due to good word-of-mouth. But . . . a certain portion of that picture's domestic audience . . . will still opt to wait for the DVD. Of course, that could change if we can figure out how to market WALL-E as . . . a movie that you have to see on the big screen.
"But . . . we don't like using gimmicks like IMAX 3D in order to sell our movies. We believe that our pictures should be strong enough . . . to compel people to come out and see our newest films while they're still in theaters."
Problems With "Brand Fatigue" Theory
No Pixar film has ever bombed. Ratatouille cost $150 million to make, plus another $50 million (for the sake of argument) for promotions. It made $204 million in domestic box office, plus another $271.8 million internationally. That's $474.8 million on a $200 million investment.
That's more money than Cars, Pixar's previous offering,ever made in theatres. That film pulled $244 domestically, plus $217 million overseas for a $463 million total.
Ratatouille has also toppled Monsters Inc. as Pixar's third-highest foreign earner ($270 million). Analysts now predict that Ratatouille will make $300 million overseas before it finishes its theatrical run.
No 'Dreck to Video'
Pixar also doesn't have Disney Toon Studios tarnishing its brand name by making cheap animated sequels. That Michael Eisner eventually shut down the legendary animation group is but one indication of how much Disney Toon hurt WDFA.
Pixar has another major advantage that WDFA lacked: the support of Disney's single largest shareholder, Steve Jobs.
"As long as Jobs has (Disney CEO) Bob Iger's ear," that same Disney animator says, "(John Lasseter and Ed Catmull) don't ever have to worry about that sort of meddling. They can just go on making the sorts of movies that they want to make."
Jobs is of the same mind as Lasseter and Catmull when it comes to filmmaking: "Quality First." As long as Lasseter and Catmull keep their eyes on the ball, Jobs will back their play.
So whether or not "brand fatigue" is real, Pixar is at the crossroads in its development. Where will it go from here? Check out Part #2 and find out.
 |
