Pixar's Overly-Optimistic Plan For Theaters

Two weeks ago, Thomas Buckley at Bloomberg released an article speaking with various figureheads at animation giant Pixar and their current plans in the wake of recent films' poor box office sales.

The part of this article that got the most scrutiny was the section describing executives’ plans to move away from tales inspired by their directors' own experiences.

I think this sentiment is worth examining critically. One, the data in the article itself, which shows Elemental doing better than Lightyear, makes the conclusion of doubling down on spin-offs and sequels baffling.

There’s also the fact that part of the reason Turning Red, Soul, and Luca did poorly at the box office is that they were released on Disney+ first.

Finally, any creative can tell you that aiming for relatable stories and “mass appeal” is a recipe for disaster. I mean just look at the critical and audience reception to The Rise Of Skywalker.

But as those aspects have already been discussed to death, I want to zoom in on what else Pixar intends to do about it.

In the article, Buckley describes Pixar’s intent to give Inside Out 2 a 100-day run in theaters, in the hopes that families will show up and show that there is still interest in the kind of stories Pixar tells (based on the article I’m unclear if that means a personal story inspired by the creators’ own experiences, or a sequel based on established characters-- Inside Out 2 is reportedly both).

I, broadly, think this is a good idea. Again, part of the issue with Turning Red, Soul, and Luca’s poor box office performance was their release on streaming before theaters. Why would you go to a theater to watch something you can just watch at home?

Where I’m skeptical is the focus on just giving the film a long tail and hoping families show up.

I don’t think streaming is going to kill theaters. Theaters have survived film, books have survived film, visual novels have survived RPGs. 

It is, frankly, hard to kill a medium stone dead, and movie theaters do offer more value as a potential third space to exist outside of home or work/school, especially for teenagers.

What I do think is that theaters hold less value for families specifically than they did pre-pandemic and pre-streaming.

For my parents and sisters to go to see Inside Out 2 on Friday at our local AMC, it’d cost anywhere from $35.76-$58.72 

The lowest number is going to the 25% off matinee time and not buying the tickets online as AMC charges an extra fee.

We live within walking distance of that theater, so that doesn’t include gas, and obviously, it doesn’t include snack charges. 

(If you want to get on-screen captions for the film at that theater you have to go to the 9:30 pm screening, because I guess children with bedtimes never have auditory processing issues?)

Compare that to the cost of Disney+. 

The most expensive bundle, Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ without ads, is $24.99 a month.

If families want to go see a movie once a month, paying for Disney+ at its most expensive is still cheaper, you get to watch more, and you have way more accommodation features.

You can have subtitles on if the kids are talking too much or you can’t hear anything. You’re not beholden to a strict starting time. You can pause the movie and go to the bathroom. You can make popcorn without it costing $10. If the kids fall asleep or don’t like the movie, you can put on something else.

If you have more than one family movie night a month, then it’s an even better value proposition.

This is also completely divorced from what audiences want and the quality of the movie.

Even if Inside Out 2 is amazing, how many families are going to decide that rather than the hassle of going out to the theater, they want to stay in for a cozy movie night and rent something? Are there new families that ARE willing to pay more to have a reason to get out of the house, and is it enough to cover the people who opt to just wait the 100 days regardless? Is that really the question you want to base the future of your studios on?

There should be more to Pixar’s strategy if they want something viable in the long term, because even if Inside Out 2 does well, and I have no reason to assume it won’t, this isn’t replicable. No matter how good a movie is, it doesn’t create a world where theaters are affordable for families or a better value than just buying Disney+ or another streaming service.

There will be exceptions, obviously. There will always be exceptions to anything like this. But will there be enough exceptions that it tips the scales? I’m not confident and I would not base the future of my multi-billion dollar studio on it.

I think what this whole scenario reveals is that a) modern metrics for success have to change. The long time in theaters gives me hope that Disney won’t deem Inside Out 2 a success or failure based purely on the first week of profits, but clearly, theater box office results are still the main thing being considered which I think is reductive to accurately gauging audience interest. 

And b) movie theaters need to pivot their business models to embracing younger people in smaller groups instead of families because it will be harder for them to appeal to families as long as streaming is cheaper.

I doubt either Pixar or theaters in general will go the way of Blockbuster. I’m not that pessimistic. But I do think they will keep struggling if they keep trying to use old measures of success in a vastly new paradigm. 

Times have changed, audiences have changed, and what makes a movie “successful” needs to change as well.