Finding Nemo sequel: Finding Dory

[WED99]

The way I see it I have never been disappointed by a Pixar film before, so I am very excited to see this

(Yes Cars 2 wasn't as good as the first but it was better then most animated films *cough* Shrek 4 *cough*)

 

[StarWarsGirl]

Box Office Mojo has their own inlfation caluclated figures, which I trust are more accurate than general inflation sites for the reasons you've mentioned. They've already done the break down domestically and it shows Cars 2 at the bottom (or 2nd last when not adjusting).

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=pixar.htm

Foreign they've yet to do, but using the same % difference as domestic (which has potential to not be accuarte as not all currencies have the same levels of inlfation difference) it would be easy to demonstrate how Cars 2 would drop in the ranks. It's also safe to assume that movies in 1995, 1998, 1999 and 2001 would all have very different numbers than 2011. The only Pixar title with a foreign total that Cars 2 would for sure outrank (which is where this whole argument started with my statement) would be Brave, and that's not by a wide margin.

And as I've said before, the % of earnings is different between domestic and foreign, so even if Cars 2 did well overseas, if it underperfomred in the US, that's still reason for Disney to be disapointed.

That's a calculator. You enter the year and it gives you the general inflation rates plus the multiplier. I don't trust Box Office Mojo because as I said, I'm currently taking college economics and don't trust anyone besides myself or an economics textbook to do the inflation rates correctly.

But as I explained in my above post (right before where I quoted you), there's no reason to adjust for inflation for films that were made within 3 or 4 years of each other. The only reason to account for inflation then is if you want to figure out the value of that money or if you want an interest rate adjusted for inflation.

I'd rather see a comparison of movie ticket prices to adjust for inflation within the market rather than the economy as a whole.

Besides, Disney does so much overseas that even if Cars 2 did poorly in the US but did well overseas, I don't think they'd be too disappointed, given that they can sell their merchandise there as well, especially at the parks in Paris, Tokyo, and Hong Kong if it did well in those respective areas.

I still can't get this site's spell check to work, are there any others with that problem?

Many browsers have their own spell check. Which one are you using?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I still can't get this site's spell check to work, are there any others with that problem?

I believe the spell check ceased to be when the forums where upgraded a few months back and wasn't seen as a concern since its built into so many browsers now.

 

[PirateFrank]

How is 1999, 2001 or 2006 "just" before 2011?

How is ignoring inflation or 3-D ticket prices "fact".

It's also convienient of you to ignore the domestic/foreign split, especially when studios earn more of a % here than elsewhere and that's a key for determining success.

I'll come talk box office figures when you have a consistent and realistic set of paramaters for judgement.

Generally-speaking, Inflation only becomes relevant once you start comparing different decades - or significant time differences, say 7-15 years. You can hardly claim the differences in inflation between 2008 and 2011 as significant or even measurable -- explain Wall-E, a huge 'success' per the hollywood press.

You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that in the three years between Wall-E's 'success' and Cars2's 'failure' -- despite Cars2 grossing $40M more -- is attributable to inflation? Even if I granted you that $40M was attributable to inflation over the 3 year period -- which is insane, btw .... You still need to sit there with a straight face and explain in an empirical fashion, where both grossing approximately the same (once I give you that $30M), how Cars2 is a failure and Wall-E was a huge success. Go ahead! this should be good...


Oh...and you conveniently ignore my comments regarding Brave, which was regarded as a 'success' despite earning $30M less than Cars2, one year after the fact. If I'm going to give you $40M/3 years, Let's add $13M (this so-called inflationary adjustment for one year) to the disparity -- just so we're even.

Explain how Brave grossed $43M *less* than Cars2, one year later - but is heralded as a success, where Cars2 was Pixar's big F-up. Again, this should be good....

 

[openendedsky]

As much as I love Finding Nemo, I'd much rather see Pixar spending their money on new films and not sequels.

Edit: Sans Toy Story. IMO, they get even better with each one.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

That's a calculator. You enter the year and it gives you the general inflation rates plus the multiplier. I don't trust Box Office Mojo because as I said, I'm currently taking college economics and don't trust anyone besides myself or an economics textbook to do the inflation rates correctly.

But as I explained in my above post (right before where I quoted you), there's no reason to adjust for inflation for films that were made within 3 or 4 years of each other. The only reason to account for inflation then is if you want to figure out the value of that money or if you want an interest rate adjusted for inflation.

As an economics student AND a Disney fan, you should certainly be aware that the actual costs of certain things (like theme park tickets let's just say ) can behave very differently than the general inflation rate, which is the gov't cobbling together the inflation of a bunch of general, important items to give an idea of a general trend.

From 2008 to 2011, movie ticket prices increased 10%, which is not insignificant. That's only three years.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Generally-speaking, Inflation only becomes relevant once you start comparing different decades - or significant time differences, say 7-15 years. You can hardly claim the differences in inflation between 2008 and 2011 as significant or even measurable -- explain Wall-E, a huge 'success' per the hollywood press.

You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that in the three years between Wall-E's 'success' and Cars2's 'failure' -- despite Cars2 grossing $40M more -- is attributable to inflation? Even if I granted you that $40M was attributable to inflation over the 3 year period -- which is insane, btw .... You still need to sit there with a straight face and explain in an empirical fashion, where both grossing approximately the same (once I give you that $30M), how Cars2 is a failure and Wall-E was a huge success. Go ahead! this should be good...


Oh...and you conveniently ignore my comments regarding Brave, which was regarded as a 'success' despite earning $30M less than Cars2, one year after the fact. If I'm going to give you $40M/3 years, Let's add $13M (this so-called inflationary adjustment for one year) to the disparity -- just so we're even.

Explain how Brave grossed $43M *less* than Cars2, one year later - but is heralded as a success, where Cars2 was Pixar's big F-up. Again, this should be good....

In my last post, I showed ticket price inflation just in the last three years that were posted. Conveniently (I am very lazy at heart), they were the exact same years we need for this argument. Cars 2 made $560M worldwide and Wall-E made $520M worldwide. Just the 10% ticket price inflation would bring Wall-E ahead of Cars 2, and that is completely ignoring the fact that Cars 2 was released in 3-D and Wall-E was not. Plus, Wall-E was loved by critics and it significantly (17%) outperformed Cars 2 domestically without factoring in any kind of inflation or 3-D premium. Most of the press and critics are located domestically. Similarly, Brave earned 24% more domestically than Cars 2 did the year before and only 5% less worldwide. Brave also did much better critically than Cars 2. Cars 2 also probably had much higher expectations than either of those other two films, since it was a sequel featuring characters that are enormously popular merch-wise. Shrek 2 earned 65% more than Shrek. Toy Story 2 earned 28% more than Toy Story. Ice Age 2 earned 11% more than Ice Age. Those numbers are all domestic. Yet, Cars earned 28% MORE domestically than its sequel without any kind of inflation or 3-D factored in. The first Cars is also fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, while the second is not.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I believe the spell check ceased to be when the forums where upgraded a few months back and wasn't seen as a concern since its built into so many browsers now.

I'm using Firefox and not getting it.

Generally-speaking, Inflation only becomes relevant once you start comparing different decades - or significant time differences, say 7-15 years. You can hardly claim the differences in inflation between 2008 and 2011 as significant or even measurable -- explain Wall-E, a huge 'success' per the hollywood press.

- For inflation, the poster above just pointed out a 10% difference in just three years, so yes that makes a difference, and all other references to "insane" on your part to be untrue
- I'm not sure how Wall-E got into this debate. The original point I made was about Cars 2's attendence and jusding it's success on its own.

You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that in the three years between Wall-E's 'success' and Cars2's 'failure' -- despite Cars2 grossing $40M more -- is attributable to inflation? Even if I granted you that $40M was attributable to inflation over the 3 year period -- which is insane, btw .... You still need to sit there with a straight face and explain in an empirical fashion, where both grossing approximately the same (once I give you that $30M), how Cars2 is a failure and Wall-E was a huge success. Go ahead! this should be good...

Calm down, I'm not here to debate Wall-E's success, just to point out how Cars 2 had lower attendence than other Pixar movies. But for that argument specifically, there are many barometers for judging success includuing precedent and expectations, both of which were different for Wall-E (an original movie without any clear, traditional "marketing" metrics like story, voice cast and marketale characters) than Cars 2 (a pre-existing franchise with a net worth in the billions thanks to toy sales). Wall-E may have been labeled a success in 2008 because it beat poor expectations set for it, while Cars 2 had higher ones not met. Could be as simple as that.

I'm also not sure why Wreck-It Wralph was brought up in your original post either. I think you're just quoting random movie figures to make a point instead of actually understanding anything beyond raw numbers.

Oh...and you conveniently ignore my comments regarding Brave, which was regarded as a 'success' despite earning $30M less than Cars2, one year after the fact. If I'm going to give you $40M/3 years, Let's add $13M (this so-called inflationary adjustment for one year) to the disparity -- just so we're even.

Explain how Brave grossed $43M *less* than Cars2, one year later - but is heralded as a success, where Cars2 was Pixar's big F-up. Again, this should be good....

"Again" (to borrow your words), here's my original comment:

"That's all do to inflation and 3-D ticket prices. Cars 2 was the least attended Pixar movie ever, which means fewer people went to the theatres to see it than any other."

Notice how the comment includes the word "was" which referes to at the time (before Brave's release), and how it does not talk about any other points in your post, because they had nothing to do with what I commented on specifically in the first place.

I made the point quoted above and then you called me out for making stuff up ("remotely approaching fact"), so I backed it up with where got the facts and figures I needed to make that comment.

Now you're still angry and I don't really know what to say beyond what I have, and that I'm not going to derail this thread any further (fun as that can be at times ) with this debate.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

As an economics student AND a Disney fan, you should certainly be aware that the actual costs of certain things (like theme park tickets let's just say ) can behave very differently than the general inflation rate, which is the gov't cobbling together the inflation of a bunch of general, important items to give an idea of a general trend.

From 2008 to 2011, movie ticket prices increased 10%, which is not insignificant. That's only three years.

You must not have read my earlier post where I explained inflation in depth and actually said that.

I'm not sure how reliable your information is. Are they factoring in Senior and kids tickets? What is their basis for "average"? Honestly, it seems low to me. Tickets cost $10 for the standard definition movies around here. They've cost that for several years now. There are too many theaters charging too many prices (using price discrimination, etc.) to account for inflation.

Account for it for 3 or more years. Rule of thumb. And even then, it's only a guess. The economy is big and complicated and it's not any more accurate nor worth it if you account for the inflation rates of films that were released within a few years of each other.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

You must not have read my earlier post where I explained inflation in depth and actually said that.

I'm not sure how reliable your information is. Are they factoring in Senior and kids tickets? What is their basis for "average"? Honestly, it seems low to me. Tickets cost $10 for the standard definition movies around here. They've cost that for several years now. There are too many theaters charging too many prices (using price discrimination, etc.) to account for inflation.

Account for it for 3 or more years. Rule of thumb. And even then, it's only a guess. The economy is big and complicated and it's not any more accurate nor worth it if you account for the inflation rates of films that were released within a few years of each other.

It comes from the National Association of Theater Owners, so they would know?

And the bolded part? Well... erm... you must not have read my post where I said I was lazy!

 

[StarWarsGirl]

It comes from the National Association of Theater Owners, so they would know?

And the bolded part? Well... erm... you must not have read my post where I said I was lazy!

Not necessarily. It depends on how they're calculating it. Mathematically, there's outliers, which can skew the numbers. If you said a median ticket price, I'd be more likely to go with it. Economically, there's price discrimination. Not accounting for inflation within 3 years is your safest bet. I'd say five years or more is enough time for prices to generally adjust. Then you should definitely account for it.

Haha, laziness. I did italicize the part though not all goods adjust their prices evenly. But I made it long on purpose so that people would know what I'm talking about and just choose to believe me, even if they don't read the whole post. And yes, it's on purpose that it reads like an economics textbook. I love arguing economics with people because so many people do no know what they are talking about, so I win, which is nice. And then my father, who was an economics major, and I argue economics, and my mother shakes her head because both of us are beyond her.

The more I study economics, the happier I am not to be trying to fix the economy. Too much of a complex mess. But alas, economics is part of my degree program.

 

[flynnibus]

That's a calculator. You enter the year and it gives you the general inflation rates plus the multiplier. I don't trust Box Office Mojo because as I said, I'm currently taking college economics and don't trust anyone besides myself or an economics textbook to do the inflation rates correctly.

Hopefully you'll soon learn published inflation numbers are taken by reviewing a SAMPLE of products and services in the country and represent a statistical average of costs - it's not just the cost of products sold. As such, it's not an absolute when you apply to an individual market, which may be moving at its own pace for various reasons (component prices, market shifts, new competition, etc).

Don't take national inflation numbers as some absolute that you apply blindly. I find it funny you discount an organization that specializes in the industry and historical tracking of the metrics in it.. in favor of a pure statistical average for the entire country.. calculated by a website by some random dude.

We all took ECON in college.. another one of those general studies classes us engineering majors looked forward to because it wasn't a meat grinder like our real course work.

I'd rather see a comparison of movie ticket prices to adjust for inflation within the market rather than the economy as a whole.

Yes.. which is ironic then why you prefer random-web-dude over boxofficemojo..

 

[Genie of the Lamp]

Ahhh, love all this econ talk here in a Finding Dory thread. Anyhow, back to Finding Dory, I saw back in @Cosmic Commando post talking about how the story is going show/tell the audience some parts of Dory's past be it with her loved family members, friends,etc on how Dory became to be the one audiences fell in love with. I remember with WTP film in 2011, the directors Stephen Anderson and Don Hall were originally considering (when the film was in early development) incorporating Rabbit's family into that movie only to take it out as production went further along. Stephen, Don, and Lasseter realized that it was not going to enhance nor advance the story. Meaning they wanted the movie to be original as possible and resemble the theme of the '77 movie . So my question here, are we going to run into something similar here where Stanton and his Pixar crew end up dropping the parts where Dory's family is scheduled to take part in the film?

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Ahhh, love all this econ talk here in a Finding Dory thread. Anyhow, back to Finding Dory, I saw back in @Cosmic Commando post talking about how the story is going show/tell the audience some parts of Dory's past be it with her loved family members, friends,etc on how Dory became to be the one audiences fell in love with. I remember with WTP film in 2011, the directors Stephen Anderson and Don Hall were originally considering (when the film was in early development) incorporating Rabbit's family into that movie only to take it out as production went further along. Stephen, Don, and Lasseter realized that it was not going to enhance nor advance the story. Meaning they wanted the movie to be original as possible and resemble the theme of the '77 movie . So my question here, are we going to run into something similar here where Stanton and his Pixar crew end up dropping the parts where Dory's family is scheduled to take part in the film?

It's tough to say. The Dory flashback stuff could be Pixar just indulging Ellen Degeneres, or it could be the whole point of the story. It'll all sort itself out in 2.5 years or so.

 

[Turtle]

I love how so many people are against sequels thinking its going to take away from original movies. Pixar opened up a 2nd studio in Canada a few years ago in order to take on many more projects..including these sequel/prequels. This is going to make piles of money for the company, and its only beneficial to do these sort of things to gain revenue to continue making NEW content as well. (Tho, I'm sorry..I think Cars 2 is by far the worst cartoon to come out of "disney" to date)

Someone also mentioned that they want an incredible sequel before this...well..good things come to those who wait

false, pixar canada is only for short films based off of Pixar franchises

 

[Turtle]

A prequel based on Dory might provide an interesting story. It could provide some insight into what caused Dory's short term memory loss condition.

It's not a prequel, it's a sequel where Marlin, Nemo, the Tank Gang, and Dory go to re-unite her with her past in the California Coastline.

 

[Turtle]

To me this is just another sign of a lack of creativity and risk taking (what made pixar great from the start).

It's a pretty big risk to make a sequel to Finding Nemo cause they'll tarnish one of their most beloved films as well as the public outlast. it's a pretty big risk if you think about it.

 

[Turtle]

Well- I absolutely love Toy Story ( all of them).
I am sure that this new Nemo movie will be excellent! Looking forward to it!
Can't wait for Monsters U. and Planes this summer!
I actually liked Cars 2, but I know I'm in the minority. I just love Mater!

PLANES IS NOT A PIXAR MOVIE. PLANES IS NOT A PIXAR MOVIE. PLANES IS NOT A PIXAR MOVIE. PLANE IS BEING MADE BY DISNEY TOON STUDIOS, THE STUDIO BEHIND DISNEY CHEAP-QUELS AND RIP-OFF SPINOFFS.

 

[Turtle]

It's a one-year later sequel. Dory somehow found her way to the California coast.

Nope. Nobody gets lost in this one. They are all together (it indicates they GO to the California Coast) to re-unite her with her family. FINDING Dory as in internally finding her past, not physically.

 

[Turtle]

In Cars 2 it mostly focused on Mater and Lightning McQueen was barely in the movie. Don't know for sure yet, but it looks like Monsters University is focusing mostly on Mike.

It is looking like it revolves around Mike, but there's ONE BIG DIFFERENCE. Mike Wazowski isn't a stupid one-dimensional character like Mater. Mater is literally an over-exposed un-intelligent comic-relief, and a FOIL (film-term) to McQueen but besides that he's nothing else. Mike Wazowski on the other hand shows heart and an arc, he's funny (on a side note), he works with Sulley, he solves problems, he's intelligent, etc.

Summary - Mike Wazowski isn't a one-dimensional character and if MU center off him, he is a character with enough depth to lead the film.

And clearly by the title Finding Nemo 2 is going to be all about Dory.

The original was called Finding Nemo yet Nemo was not the protagonist. Like above Dory has a lot of depth in her character and if she is the protagonist (which she probably will in addition to Marlin and Nemo) she can lead the film fine.