Pixar continually defies Hollywood's "rules"

Up, the upcoming Pixar movie, is about a 78 year old man. There is no love interest. It ignores typical Hollywood formula. And it's probably going to be awesome and it's probably going to do great at the box office.

The New York Times has an interesting article on the subject titled, Pixar's Art Leaves Profit Watchers Edgy. It seems that after nine films, people still worry that because Pixar ignores Hollywood cliches and formula, its films won't make a profit. I suppose these experts are just ignoring the fact that their films are always pretty darn great and do pretty darn well.

I'm really glad Pixar exists so that at least one company out there can drive home the fact that the typical Hollywood formula is completely unnecessary. Films can be good, they can ignore the formula, and they can still make money.

I mean, I guess it sucks for Walmart that an action figure of a 78 year old man isn't as cool as a Transformer or something, but if movies can turn a respectable profit without having a huge following of toys... big deal.

I understand that Fast and Furious made a lot of money, even though it's a mindless remake of a mindless action movie. I get that and accept it. But I'm part of a market that will never go and see that movie, but I will go see movies like "Up" anything else that's good.

Truly good movies appeal to everyone. Action isn't my favourite genre, but I really enjoy Die Hard II. (It's one of the best Christmas movies of all time!) I don't enjoy "kid's movies," but I've enjoyed every Pixar movie I've seen (I think Cars may be the only one I've missed so far.)

Unfortunately, good movies are harder to make than formulaic movies. But when Pixar routinely is able to pump out great movies, I think it's time for the rest of Hollywood to sit back and trust them.

Why Wall-E Worked

Did you go see Wall-E last weekend? I did. Thought it was quite a good movie. In fact, I thought it would be a good flick to catch back when I first saw the first trailer for it.

But apparently not everybody thought the marketing for Wall-E was up to snuff. In particular, marketing guru Seth Godin wrote this piece about how Pixar "messed up" the marketing of Wall-E:

It has a hard to spell name, no furry characters, not nearly enough dialogue (the first 45 minutes is almost silent), no nasty (but ultimately ridiculous) bad guy, hardly any violence and very little slapstick. Wall-e didn't get a huge Hollywood PR campaign or even a lot of promotion, it doesn't feature any hot stars and as far as I can tell, the merchandising options are quite limited.

Godin says it was "bravery" that led Pixar and Disney not to "pander to the masses", and that their bravery has unexpectedly paid off.

Interesting, but here's my take:

With the recent and upcoming releases of movies such as Madagascar 2, Ice Age 3, Kung-Fu Panda, Space Chimps, etc., it was actually refreshing to see a CG animated movie that didn't star a cute furry creature voiced by a big-name celebrity.

So, I'm not sure if it was "bravery" that motivated Pixar and Disney to create Wall-E, as Godin states. I think it was actually a very calculated move to do something different and be distinct from the rest of the animated pack.

But let's face it -- in the end, it's a Pixar film. Whether it stars cuddly critters or metallic robots, there's no way a Pixar movie was gonna flop on its opening weekend.