I'm told that Disney and Pixar are going to push hard for a Best Picture Oscar nomination for Wall-E on the basis of its anti-toon moody darkness and rave reviews by critics who matter. Certainly many toons have tried for that high honor over the years, and then settled for "just" a recently added Best Animated Feature nod. Only one animated movie has made it into the most competitive Academy Award category -- Disney's Beauty And The Beast in 1991 -- but, alas, didn't win. But that may not be the obstacle in Wall-E's way. No, I'm hearing the problem may be Andrew Stanton's arrogance in that interview in last Sunday's New York Times:
"Stanton, who wrote and directed the film, doesn’t care if the kiddies want to hug Wall-E or not when the movie comes out on Friday. 'I never think about the audience,” he said. “If someone gives me a marketing report, I throw it away.'” Because them thar's fightin' words in the movie industry. "Half of Hollywood went, 'You've got to be kidding!' " a bigwig Hollywood marketer said, echoing sentiment heard within the Industry. "Nobody can say, 'I don't care what the audience thinks', especially when making a mainstream movie for families. Nobody can live outside the envelope like that. His disdain for the audience was really obvious."
Ah, I love the smell of nastiness at the start of Oscar season. Smells like... controversy!
I’m sure he was talking about when he’s constructing the movie- that it’s not done by committee like every other piece of hollywood crap. If you look at the track record of Pixar and I think his comments are quite valid. Pixar makes movies they themselves would want to see, and so far they’ve been in tune with their audience. In a hundred years from now, if audiences aren’t dumb and fat enough to get off their beds to see a film, they’ll pull a Pixar movie off the classics shelf, not Transformers 6. Get over yourself, Hollywood.
Comment by Outsider — June 27, 2008 @ 1:53 am
When the quality of film goes to shit, so to must the Oscar noms - hence some of the recent noms and winners, without naming names.
Comment by Michael Dobrofsky — June 27, 2008 @ 1:59 am
I’m laughing like a drain at that freaked-out Hollywood marketer. What, disdain for research? Trust the artist’s creative instincts instead? And end up making movies that audiences love, instead of patronising over-tested movies which bomb? But that would mean film-making is an art, not a marketing-based science. Cannot compute! Head explodes!
Comment by Giggles — June 27, 2008 @ 1:59 am
How stupid are bigwig Hollywood marketers? Was the director supposed to say: “I keep my nose on the marketing reports when making a movie, so Wall*E is just another summer flick.”
Of course he should at least pretend to be an auteur, especially in the NYT Art pages of all places. No controversy here except for marketing suits.
And I will certainly go and see Wall*E this week-end, even more so after reading this.
Comment by Why oh why — June 27, 2008 @ 2:12 am
Actually, it doesn’t sound like contempt for his audience so much as contempt for what the Marketing Department tells him the audience wants (and it really is hard to fault him for THAT, isn’t it?)
Comment by cst — June 27, 2008 @ 3:12 am
Obviously what Stanton meant was that he and his team create the film as a work of art, not in response to focus groups and marketing demands. Any idiot can see the tradition of the Pixar films is a love for art that entertains as well and can be embraced by mass audiences. Nothing to really see here. Move along.
Comment by Anon — June 27, 2008 @ 3:16 am
Sounds to me like the mainstream press and marketers are actively distorting what Stanton is saying because Stanton is, well, thumbing his nose at them rather than at the audience.
Forget about audience breakdowns, he doesn’t want to hear it. What matters is the overall regard for the movie by all of the audience. To him, the marketing research is meaningless — as it should be, since it’s the tail trying to wag the dog.
Their characterization of Stanton, putting words into his mouth with their mistaken paraphrase, “I don’t care what the audience thinks.” is a ludicrous straw-man fallacy — and blatantly so.
In the interview at the NYT with Manola Dhargis, it’s clear from the context in the article that Staton is referring to the fact that he does not keep any specific audience in mind when he makes a movie — he isn’t targeting any demographics, he’s not working with marketers to fit their preconceptions. Staton is refusing to make Marketing part of the creative process. And he’s correct to do so. And the Marketers are, obviously, unjustifiably miffed. He’s saying that (my paraphrase), “We’re making the movies for ourselves — we hope the audiences find the movie and like it and that’s all that we can and should do.”
That totally emasculates Marketing, relegating it to where it should be — marketing the movie, not attempting to co-create it. And IMNSHO if the marketing peeps want any sort of creative input into a movie, they should quit their markeing jobs and go into directing, writing and producing and if not, they should shut the hell up about the creative dimensions of the movie until it’s locked and their marketing whiz is by actual definition supposed to come into play.
It’s too damn bad if they differ, but it’s NOT their movie. They should stop transferring their feelings of being left of the process to their delusion that the audinece must feel left out, which clearly is not the case that Staton makes. He wants an audience, he wants the movie to be successful, everything else is bad journalism on Dhargis’s part and backbiting on the marketers’ part.
IMNSHO, they should be embarrassed by their self-absorption and should keep their mouths shut.
Rob Jensen,
from the peanut gallery
in Central Missouri
Comment by Rob Jensen — June 27, 2008 @ 4:18 am
GOOD FOR HIM. Finally someone who is more concerned about the art of film making than the business. So many great (and financially successful) films have come from those who were focused on putting an artistic vision on the screen, you would think Hollywood would learn to just step back and let creators realize the full extent of their imaginations. When film makers make movies they themselves want to see, the audience usually follows in tow. This has nothing to do with disdain for the audience… it’s about disdain for those who treat films like assembly line products that should be tinkered with by those with no creative ability until they are a bland by-product of imagination ready for mass marketing.
Comment by RodimusBen — June 27, 2008 @ 5:03 am
“Nobody can say, ‘I don’t care what the audience thinks’”
Yeah, that’s why the number of people of attending movies or watching TV is at an all-time high.
Oh, wait. It’s not. Hollywood drove away most of its audience by making products the mainstream doesn’t want to see.
Comment by Ricco — June 27, 2008 @ 5:10 am
This is what happened when your ego gets the better of your talent. Think Shyamalan.
Since when is winning an Oscar is bigger than winning your audiences? I guess Pixar needs to have a bomb to appreciate their audience. Not that I want that to happen cause I really do like the movies Pixar has produced so far. But I guess swallowing a ‘Jagged Little Pill’ will help to put some people’s ego in check
Comment by Armand — June 27, 2008 @ 5:35 am
Pixar has a history of making great films. The history of success they have created by building movies that they would want to see and be proud of, certainly shows you that they have a system that works.
So, ignoring a marketing report makes perfect sense for them. It should make sense for the entire industry as they (Pixar) have made some of the best flicks; storytelling wise, commercially, critically, and finding a permanent niche in the psyche, over the past decade.
Are they the only ones who have made films that were also as successful? Nope, but they are the only production company that is batting 1,000 for making hits of that scale.
Comment by Nate — June 27, 2008 @ 6:29 am
Let me preface my remarks by stating I don’t work for the mouse and my husband works at a rival studio.
The suits might not be 100% sure about this one, but although Stanton may claim to not think about the audience demographics, he can certainly draw an audience in.
Now, I’d like to see it. But, our newly turned 3 year old year old daughter has been all about Wall-E since she say the trailer back at an event in April. She wanted to watch it and see “sad eyes” Wall-E on DVD that day. Took a few weeks for her to understand that movies come out in a place called a theater first and I couldn’t just pop in the DVD or play it on the DVR on the big screen in the living room.
We’re not those parents that drag young children to movies they have no business seeing. We quashed Rattatoille last year because we didn’t think she was old enough although she loves it. So her first trip to a movie theater will be this weekend… and she’s been telling us that she’ll have to whisper in the theater. We’ve been on a Wall-E countdown for the last two weeks.
Note to marketers and box office watchers: On Fathers Day we were at Disneyland and she found the stuffed Wall-E and Eve in one of the stores and has been with them ever since. The toys weren’t out everywhere at the park yet and people kept coming up to us asking where we got them and how much they were looking forward to seeing the movie. By the end of the day it felt like we were bodyguards to little stuffed Wall-E and Eve with the amount of people approaching us.
Out of arrogance or just plain honesty Stanton may claim to not pay attention to the details the bean counters want him to, but he knows how to create endearing characters and stories that whole families can appreciate.
Comment by BTL Mom — June 27, 2008 @ 7:25 am
i can’t wait for hollywood to be taken apart by people who are smarter than the status quo. burn baby burn.
Comment by bob — June 27, 2008 @ 7:29 am
I have a similar disdain for market research. While at university had a gig writing sketch comedy for a TV pilot in Toronto. The producer decided that market research was the way to ensure a hit.
Once the market research was done, it went from being an edgy sketch comedy show, to a sitcom about angels inspired by a cream cheese commercial. When me and the other writers got a look at the script after it had been “improved” by the market research firm, we realized that they removed all the jokes.
That pilot didn’t even get filmed, let alone sold. The money people fled for the hills after a read through.
Real classic entertainment comes from instinct, not demographics, but…the flip side is becoming so wrapped up with hubris as an auteur that you make a film that no one wants to see by being to busy making profound statements to actually tell a good story.
Now I don’t know if kids are going to like the image of fat stupid human dystopia to make this film a success in the long run. Though its status as a Pixar film will at least guarantee a good opening weekend.
Comment by Furious D — June 27, 2008 @ 8:31 am
I don’t think those comments were “arrogant” by any means. Any time an artist is thinking of the audience or the consumer he/she is practically imprisoning himself.
Comment by marketing does not equal art — June 27, 2008 @ 9:44 am
Seriously though … is anyone going to remember that vague comment in January?
Probably not. Wall-E isn’t running for President, here - but I would absolutely cry with joy if he managed to get a best picture nod.
And that quote is clearly being taken in the wrong context - he is saying he doesn’t care while making the movie, Pixar has always been this way - they don’t have “demographics” they go after, unlike all the other animated films out there.
Comment by Jess — June 27, 2008 @ 10:03 am
“Disdain for the audience”? Oh, give me a fucking break. I can’t believe you even stooped to dignify that comment by printing it–let alone suggested it reflects some kind of backlash that will cost him at the Oscars.
Comment by Chris W. — June 27, 2008 @ 10:34 am
The animators of the old Warner Bros. cartoons admitted they were out to amuse only themselves; the audience was secondary. Result: They created countless classic works that have been celebrated and analyzed endlessly ever since.
Market research does nothing but destroy creativity. Stanton should keep on doing what he’s doing. Nobody else in Hollywood seems to care about originality.
Comment by Kevin Kusinitz — June 27, 2008 @ 10:42 am
I remember about ten years ago a movie was about to come out, everyone was talking about the gigantic ego of the director, and how it had a basically depressing story line.
The marketing people all laughed… “Who the hell wants to see this movie — the ship sinks!!”
Fox was so scared they sold off the domestic rights to Paramount.
Cynical Hollywood folks still know that it’s correct to cringe when the word Titanic is uttered. But last I remember, the thing grossed a gajillion dollars and won a gajillion oscars.
Wall-E will be hugely successful and it will get nominated for Best picture and it might very well win. Pixar is overdue.
Comment by jmay — June 27, 2008 @ 10:44 am
“This is what happened when your ego gets the better of your talent. Think Shyamalan.”
Um, what??? What happens? You end up with movies that get 98% positive reviews? And I’ll bet audiences love it as well, and it makes a big pile of money? Yeah, nobody would ever want THAT to happen.
Shyamalan is a guy with a couple early hits under his belt that increasingly seem like flukes. Stanton has hit home runs on every project, with critics, with audiences, with awards, and at the box office.
The folks at Pixar have talent that would probably justify ANY amount of ego, but they still seem pretty down to earth.
There’s no question that Pixar cares about their audience. They absolutely do test screenings and get reactions, and they absolutely do create movies by “committee”. The difference is their team of guys is a bunch of hugely talented creatives, not decisions made by suits. If anything, they tweak based on audience reaction and work as a team way MORE than most other movies, that’s probably the reason they have been so successful and consistent.
They just don’t care about what suits and marketing guys think, nor do they pander to lowest common denominator tastes like Shrek’s pop culture references. They figure out what audiences will like instead of asking audiences what they like via questionnaire or other nonsense (which virtually always gives horrible results).
Comment by milo — June 27, 2008 @ 10:46 am
Are you kidding me? Yeah, I’m sure Andrew Stanton, of all people, has “disdain” for his audience. What shallow criticism. All he was saying is that he doesn’t make creative decisions based on what he or some executives think the audience would prefer to see. And by the way, if EVERY filmmaker had the same approach, we’d get a lot more great movies. Quit your whining, you slags.
Comment by Stanton's Right! — June 27, 2008 @ 11:15 am
FTR, the NYT interview with Stanton by Katrina Onstad is at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/movies/22onst.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
Context is everything and once you’ve read it, it’s clear that the marketing peep(s) that NF talked to have an axe to grind. It’ll be interesting to read any follow-ups NF has from anonymous sources on the pro-Stanton side, especially if Wall-E is even a modest hit.
— Rob
Comment by Rob Jensen — June 27, 2008 @ 11:55 am
Marketing is just a necessary evil to get your movies out there. Pixar has the best track record of every studio in the industry. The quote would only offend you if you don’t care about art or storytelling. It’s amazing how these comments are 100% on the side of Stanton. And I just saw the movie, and it’s a MASTERPIECE.
Comment by Smart — June 27, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
how idiotic if the loss or win of an oscar is based on that NY Times interview. …
so i really wonder if Hitchcock, Ford, Wyler, Wilder, Scorsese, Speilberg et al, you know, the GREAT directors, read about market surveys when creating their most famous & artistically significant movies? i mean really, think about it, any of the directors i named, even Speilberg and his sequels, created their best creative works when simply doing a pic based on their own sincere & profound ideas of what makes a great motion picture or on a idea/topic they felt needed to be made into a pic. MANY of these types of films were successful as well as creative. MANY of them TOOK RISKS. MANY of these films did not win an oscar. in Hitch’s case NOTE ONE OF HIS FILMS WON AN OSCAR. CAN YOU IMAGINE? ho lame the oscar can be.
also, if you look at Speilberg for instance, if he only made movies that were based on survey popularity contests, would we have created Close Encounters, Empire of the Sun, Schindler’s List etc…? In fact, before making Close Encounters, he was offered to do a Jaws 2 sequel because it was popular, yet he rejected doing it. Thank the Lord he did.
Comment by lu-ee — June 27, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
Give me a break. Pixar has an excellent track record of making films that are interesting beyond being lowest common denominator crap. IF they were trying to make movies specifically for marketing, Ratatouille or this half-silent film would have never got made. They’ve earned the luxury of not having to make films based on marketing reports because they’re excellent work has built them a cache that people respect.
And to Ricco, above…
How can you quote Stanton and then reply to his comments by saying this is the exact reason attendance is down. Pixar is one of the most successful studios of it’s type in history… they’re doing it the right way, and it’s paying off both financially and artistically.
Comment by ckn8 — June 27, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
I haven’t seen Wall-E yet, but it seems like a great movie based upon word of mouth and the positive reviews.
Pixar is overdue for a best picture nomination. It’s too bad that Wall-E like Ratatouille will probably be put in the animated feature category.
Comment by Kelly — June 27, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
Pixar as a whole has ALWAYS created movies without aiming at what audiences think, and they have NEVER been afraid to say so. They make movies that THEY want to see, what THEY care about and what THEY find exciting and interesting. That is not arrogance; that is creativity.
So-called Hollywood marketers wouldn’t know what creativity is without dollar signs stamped on it.
If success depends on what Hollywood marketers think, Pixar would have been another Dreamworks. Thankfully, Pixar is always will be Pixar.
Comment by katsat — June 28, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
If AMPAS nominates WALL-E it would become shockingly in touch with the home viewership.
Comment by C. — June 29, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
to quote Bill Hicks, “people in marketing and advertising need to kill themselves.” i couldn’t agree with him more. we don’t need these people to dictate what the general public should enjoy and buy. i have to deal with these people at Warners and the things they come up with to “sell it to the people” is absurd, to say the least. it’s bad enough that i have to conform my work to satisfy them half the time.
Comment by Name Withheld For Obvious Reasons — June 30, 2008 @ 4:01 am
I wouldn’t count on it but WALL-E deserves a nomination for Best Picture.
That “arrogence” of Stanton is not arrogence at all. He says he “doesn’t care what the audience thinks.”
He kinda right. After all, the audience grows more narrow-minded as time pass. They want entertainment, not good storyline. WHat do audience these days know about “profound” movies?
Comment by Caroline — July 17, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
I love to see WALL-E get nominated for Best Picture. Actually I think it deserves a win.
Also, there was wonderful sound editing and mixing by Ben Burtt, he might even deserve a Special Achievement.
And there was a beautful score by Newman. Derserves nomintaion.
Most importantly, Stanton derserves a win for Best Original Screenplay. Beautiful storytelling, beautiful originality.
But what makes those voters discriminate animated movie?
WALL-E FOR BEST PICTURE.
Comment by Alia — July 22, 2008 @ 5:58 am