| 1. | (24 posts) | Mis-Marketing of "Spirited Away" |
| 2. | (21 posts) | "Castle in the Sky" Release Prospects |
| 3. | (17 posts) | "Spirited Away" Wonderings |
| 4. | (18 posts) | Happiness is What I Long For |
| 5. | (4 posts) | Check Your Sources |
We looked at 154 posts by 63 different contributors.
The amount of posts was above-average, but this week also contained a large number of 50+ line posts.
Marc Hairston broke out the calculator and wrote, "So that means that sometime yesterday or today Spirited Away will pass the official box office take of the Powerpuff Girls Movie of $3,583,114. For those of you who missed it, PGM opened the day before 4th of July last summer in 2340 theaters nationwide and after five days only made $3,583,114. These numbers were so bad that Warners pulled the film within a couple of weeks and refused to publish any box office numbers after that first week. . .
My point is remind everyone that even with a known product and a *huge* advertising budget (all June it looked like PG was going to be one of the summer blockbusters if you counted all the commercials you saw), a movie can still bomb. Meanwhile we have a relatively unknown product in about 140 theaters and next to no advertising and SA is steadying chugging along.
Raz Greenberg replied, "just what kind of final box-office results would Disney a "success" for "Spirited Away"? If, as someone else wrote here, Disney have no plans to give it a wider release, than the film is past its prime. According to Box office Mojo, it started dropping last weekend, and without opening in new theatres, I can't think of any reason it will do a box-office magical leap. Still, it has a chance of reaching past the 5,000,000$ number in ticket sales, which is respectable, I think (that's more than twice of what "Mononoke" did in the US theatre, no?). But are these really the figures Disney are aiming for?. . .
Also, just how much money did Disney invest in the US distribution of the film? I remember a message here from about half a year ago (couldn't find it in the archives) saying that the entire US "Mononoke" distribution (getting the rights to the movie, translation, dubbing and everything else) cost Disney 10,000,000$. I assume "Spirited Away" would have cost less (no big names behind translation or dubbing here), but just how much?
Sharon Westfall wrote, "But that's the frustrating part to this, it shouldn't be chugging, it should be flying.
I'm not saying a $3 million ad campaign like L&S (bankrolled by the Hawaii HVB...stickers, dolls, aloha shirts and muumuus...overkill...). A trailer here and there, before L&S, in the middle of Kiki on the Disney Channel, would have been great. Not 3,000 copies to distribute to theaters, but geez... 1/20th of that?
I still can't help but feel there is a rift between Disney and Ghibli/Tokuma that is complicating this. Afterall, Disney was even reluctant to/delayed in picking up the NA distribution at first.
Marc wrote back to Raz and Sharon, "As for how much it would have to make for Disney to call it a success, I don't know if any the Disney accountants know that for sure. If Disney only grudgingly released it (as it's starting to appear) then it could hit (to pick a huge number) $50 million and they'd still call it a failure. For their own feature animations, anything less than $100 million domestically seems to be considered a failure. . . those numbers are a carefully guarded secret and we'll never get a definite answer from them. Overall I would guess that they spent less on getting the rights and doing the dub for SA than they did for Mononoke, but that's just a gut guess. . .
Just for the record, the ad campaign for L&S was $40 million while the production of the movie was estimated at $80 million. . . Even the "word-of-mouth" hit "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" has spent $19 million on ads. I agree that Disney should have spent a *lot* more on advertising SA than they did, but remember, you're not having to convince me, you're having to convince the Disney marketing folks. It obvious they didn't expect much out of this and weren't going to risk their necks and jobs by upping the ad campaign budget.
Sharon replied, "Oh man! $40 million! Now *that* is crazy! (I forgot to mention the Hula roadshow to SE Asia, too..)
Oh well, if one of the messages in SA is how tacky consumerism and buying love is, then a big ad campaign to popularize SA would not have
been apropos, eh?
I do think this minimal campaign has helped to solidify Miyazaki's reputation as an animation legend, even if still in cult status only.
Chris Wallace dusted off his keyboard and pounded out, "Now, normally I am the one refuting the "Disney wants to bury Ghibi films", but Sharon's question made me wonder...
...if Disney's Feature Animation people are getting worried. PIXAR films do as well as, if not better than, Feature Animation's own products and seem to appeal to a much wider, and more lucrative, demographic - teens and adults. We all believe, and so do most of the critics, that Ghibli films are superior to what Feature Animation puts out. If PIXAR lands $500 million a film, and a fully-marketed and licensed Ghibli film did $500 million, then what point is there to spend all this money and effort on Feature Animation films that make $200 million?
We know Disney was essentially "forced" to show "Mononoke" first, while I believe "Castle" was their choice (based on the work of re-scoring it and dubbing it and advertising it on the "Kiki" video).
Disney bought the best voice talent they could find, and did at least a token advertising attempt for a film with no marketing partners or tie-ins. And, as we all know, it went down in the biggest fireball since Tunguska. . .
So here comes "Sen". Disney does not really want to touch it. The may fear Dreamworks doing well with it, but based on their own experience with Mononoke, they may have felt they were safe to let DM have it and watch it fail.
But then comes John Lassiter and he wants it, and he wants Disney to do it. And Disney wants John to do PIXAR films beyond "Nemo". Plus, they don't want PIXAR going independent or, true horror-of-horrors, linking up with Dreamworks, which arguably "owns" the "adult CGI market" (if such a thing even exists) after "Shrek", and giving them the "kids" CGI market, as well.
So I think Disney did it to make Lassiter happy. Not for any sense of Quid Pro Quo, but five to ten million is cheap "goodwill" if it keeps PIXAR aligned with Disney.
Also, how much of that $40 million in advertising Disney spent on "Lilo & Stitch" was paid directly by Disney, and how much was paid for by marketers linked to it (like McDonalds for the Happy Meals) and how much was recovered from licensees? Probably most if not all of it.
"Spirited Away" does not have that. Every dollar Disney spends comes from the films receipts. So if they spent $4 million on SA ads, one tenth of L&S, they'd only now be breaking even (assuming those ads generated no new income, but being charitable, say it doubled it to $8 million. I do not think we'd be talking $10 million in revenue for every $1 million in ads).
To my knowledge, we do not know why Disney does not have the marketing rights. I have to believe that Disney was denied the marketing rights. Either because the Japanese licensees own them for the world, or Ghibli is truly interested only in Japan and wanted to ensure Disney spent their effort on Japan ("all you will make is video sales, so you best concentrate on the Japanese home market").
I firmly believe if we had "SA" happy meals and you could buy the English-versions of all the SA merchandise in a Disney Store and a Wal-Mart, "Spirited Away" would be playing on as many screens and with the ad campaign of "Lilo & Stitch". I mean Disney could have owned the second half of 2002 - L&S leading into SA leading into "Treesure Planet".
But they have nothing to leverage the costs, and the failure of "Mononoke" I think reinforces Marc's view that Disney Marketing is playing it low key and low cost, ensuring that the film at least breaks even, even if that means it will not "break out".
Sharon mused, "It would be interesting to find out what John Lassiter thinks of Disney's marketing efforts. The treatment of SA was entrusted to him, by Miyazaki, because of a personal and professional friendship. I think Lassiter did a fabulous job with the film itself. I cannot imagine he had anything to do with the theatrical release stage."
Switching gears a little, Richard Pardoe linked to an article by Jack Mathews that blasted Disney's handling of "Spirited Away". Not much direct commenting on the article, but it did help spark more debate. Michael Kerpan wrote, "someone claims they spoke to people at Disney -- and the Disney sources say "Spirited Away" can't have any wider release than it currently has because Disney has made all the prints it intends to make, and will just shift these around from place to place."
Karl confirmed Michael's post, "That's the explanation we've gotten in Tallahassee FL for why the Miracle 5 has postponed their opening twice in as many weeks... all the while showing the posters, etc."
Benjamin Barry posted, "Hey, maybe the upside to all of this is that the next Miyazaki movie will get more attention from Disney, and if it does well to, who knows where all of this could go?" Reaction to Benjamin's post was mostly negative. Michael replied, "If Disney Marketeers can't (or won't) lift a finger to promote a critical favorite that is also a potential crowd pleaser (with a proven record in Asia and Europe), I see no reason for expecting "better luck next time"."
Warren Savage put together this theory, "What if you were to see Disney as a family. I don't think this analogy is too much of a stretch.
And, within that analogy, the films produced by the 'family' are seen as offspring (children.)
Following this analogy, Miyazaki's films are -- you got it -- STEPchildren.
And there are plenty of examples of stepchildren being being given inferior treatment by the step-parents. (Yes, there are examples of good stepparents, but you get the point.) And the English language has phrases like "treated like a red-headed stepchild" or "b*****d stepchild.". . .
Where does PIXAR fit in? PIXAR films are proven to be humongously successful. And Disney is making a pile of money sucking up to that
success. Question: Where would PIXAR be if A Bugs Life had flopped. Bad. Would there be a Toy Story 2? Perhaps, but a lot less
likely. If it had gotten made at all, the Disney suits would have interfered the Toy Story 2 we've gotten to see (because of PIXARs continued success,) right out of all recognition. Is my scenario certain to have happened? No, not 'certain', but highly likely.
Is PIXAR, then, also a stepchild in the Disney family. Maybe. Maybe an 'uncle' (the way a good friend of the family is an 'uncle'.) At any rate, I think Disney wants PIXAR to NOT work for another studio more than Disney wants PIXAR to work FOR Disney.
Back to Spirited Away and stepchild status. At today's current level of market (non)saturation (for both ads and for number of screens,) I wonder what kind of performance it would take to signal to Disney execs that they might have a moneymaker on their hands if they just market it well enough. What would it take? Playing in the largest auditoriums in the multiplexes, to nearly full houses for every evening and weekend showing? C'mon, what is that point where the execs should decide to go wide release because it'd be stupid not to?
A spinoff from the previous thread started when Sharon Westfall wrote, "I'm still hoping Castle gets the theatrical release, and Disney goes all out with that one. (Reasonably all out, not $40 million in advertising...)"
Michael Kerpan replied, "But "Castle" is far worse as family fare than "Spirited Away". The carnage near the end is immense -- and even a bit cavalier. . . It is also the most poorly structured Ghibli film (if one inaccurately starts counting with "Nausicaa"). Far from worthless -- but not a good break-through choice."
The hits just kept on coming with Deborah Goldsmith writing, "I also think that "Castle" is unlikely as a theatrical release, especially a wide one. You can't make the argument that it will be more successful because it is an adventure story of the kind moviegoers are used to in North America. If it's judged in that way, the first thing people are going to notice is that the film is sixteen years old, and looks it. It will be compared to films made in the last year or two, not other sixteen-year-old films. It can't compare on that basis.
Yes, it's definitely a Miyazaki film, but I would argue that of all his films, it's the most "conventional." It does have those touches we all love, and an environmental, anti-war message, but those aren't going to sell it to the adventure film market, which is very crowded. I think it will be a very difficult sell.
Sharon defended the film with, "The story is easier to understand: A mysterious girl falls from the sky. A boy in search for adventure. A lost floating castle in the sky... pirates, gunships, and an obvious happy ending. I think it'd do well with girls too, (although, Pazu is not as cute... :-) Girls like action too. Animation-wise, it's dated, not as up to PM or SA modern standards. And the robots are old looking... probably not "Gundam" enough."
Andrew Osmond jumped into the fray on the side of the film, "People falling... it's a popular Disney way to 'kill' people (Snow White, Beauty and the Beast) and despite the numbers involved, I'd rate it less 'violent' than, say, the strongly implied hanging in Tarzan, or several other Disney deaths. Yes, it is cavalier: by now Laputa's villain has a full-blown god-complex and treats his fellow humans as insects. If you want a moral reaction, just look at Sheeta's horror at the scene, and her frantic efforts to save the soldiers. . . I love all Laputa's unapologetic symbolism with the tree outgrowing and then jettisoning the machine, not to mention the 'zany' pirate queen. For my money, Kiki is the most conventional Miyazaki film (not that I don't like it)."
A strong responce from Warren Savage, "Please -- try not to use the word 'zany' when describing a Miyazaki film...
I have a rule that I will not see a movie where the reviewer has described either the plot, action or characters as 'zany.' Following this rule has reduced my occurrences of sitting in a darkened theater and thinking to myself, "Dang! They got my money!"
Andrew replied, "For the record, I was thinking of John Grant's description of Dola in MASTERS OF ANIMATION, where he calls her 'one of animation's great zanies': he contrasts her with Disney sidekicks like, say, Timon and Pumba, but the label could presumably be applied to Stitch (in Lilo and Stitch) or any of the great short-cartoon anarchists like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck etc.
Okay, maybe I should have used another word...
And just to fit everything Laputa into this thread, here's a question from Warren Savage, "Does anybody know the age of Sheeta and Pazu in Castle in the Sky?" Paul Mayer replied, "In "Hayao Miyazaki - Master of Japanese Animation" Helen McCarthy posits that Sheeta and Pazu are about 13 and 14 respectively. Not sure where she got those numbers though. I've checked through the theatre program pamphlet, the Art of Laputa book, the Laputa Guide Book, and the Archives of Studio Ghibli Vol. 1 and could not find a specific mention of the kids' ages."
Sharon Westfall posted a list of nagging questions from "Spirited Away", only a few of which generated quotable responses. The triggers included, "If Sen needed her clothes to go back to the real world, why didn't her parents transform back naked?
Was the jumping, squeeking lantern in front of Zaniba's cottage a homage to Pixar?
Several people responded to the Pixar question, but Sharon solved her own mystery after spotting this USA Today article.
Chris Kuan answered, "I think the clothes were to remind her of her existence outside the spirit world, not actually magic keys that would physically enable her to return. The *really* important thing seems to have been the note from her friends tucked in among the clothes. BTW, the glints off the hairband I think are too subtle to be intended as suggesting that the hairband actually *caused* Chihiro to not look back. I think they were there to remind the viewer of the presence of the band, as a reminder of her friends left behind (cf. the note)."
He also asked his own question, "Just why did Kamaji keep his tickets for 40 years and never leave? I suppose if he was originally of the spirit world, and worked for Yubaba, then the conflict with Zeniba might have given him pause. But then why did he buy (?) the tickets in the first place? Unless a long-forgotten person came from over thar' looking for work, and left the tickets with him..."
Clifton Hestla mused, "It is common enough in the human world for people to remain in situations that they don't like but never quite seem to be able to leave. Whether it if fear of the unknown, social inertia, or procrastination, they never seem to be able to take that first step. It seems the same thing occurs in the spirit world. Kamaji is not the only one affected either. When Lin and Chihiro are setting on the balcony watching the train Lin says that "one day I'll get on that train and leave this place". Given the life span of spirits I wonder how long she has been waiting for that "one day"?"
More bathhouse/No-Face analysis this week, Andrew Osmond leads us into the thread, "I remain flummoxed by why the Rotten Tomato reviewer thought the prostitution angle somehow clarified the whole film. I've also been persuaded that everything about Kaonashi makes sense without invoking real-world parallels. Of course, the parallels are still there, even if Miyazaki had no conscious or 'unconscious' intentions to draw them.
I'm not convinced he wants to eat Sen at all; certainly, he seems to miss a lot of opportunities. The 'oneness' of x eating y is played up in the Nausicaa manga, and lots of mythology, but I don't see much sign of it here. Contra German Gomez, I don't think he takes on any 'physical attributes' of his victims, nor any personality traits.
German Gomez replied, "Whereas before eating the frog he (Kaonashi) does not have a voice (all he does have is sigh), he "inherits" one with the frog inside him. His body also becomes froggish. With the frog out again, he loses the voice. Not much to go on, I agree, but I cannot help the impression I got."
Robin Casady wrote, "I didn't get the impression that Kaonashi knows what he is after. I think he is just flailing around trying to find a remedy to his emptiness. When Sen turns him down about the tags, he vanishes and lurks. When the little frog comes along, he takes an opportunity. After consuming the frog, he gains some of the frogs knowledge and tries being a "customer" at the bath -- something the frog probably envies. Kaonashi keeps going back to Sen because nothing else is giving him satisfaction. Sen is the only one who treated him with kindness. As soon as Zeniba offers him a place, he accepts without any regret or thoughts of Sen. Kaonashi isn't after Sen, he is just trying to fill his emptyness."
German sent back, "I do not disagree with you, I think, you've got it. I personally know of people who are like Kaonashi. Their life is empty and they try to obtain happiness thru others' happiness. For example seeing happy grandchildren makes them momentarily forget their misery. Or if they know of X person obtaining something (a physical object) that is precious to X, they will try to obtain another of the very same object for themselves to see if thay can duplicate the effect it had on X (and they do this time and time again, thus they consume to fill a void). They cannot trust their own taste or likes, because they do not seem to have any as they lack an identity. This last characteristic seems to me to be the defining element on a Hungry/Lonely Ghost like Kaonashi. This is why I think that the focus should not be in something like prostitution. Yes, they may seek to obtain sexual/emotional fulfillment from others as a means to fill their void, but then again this won't necessarily manifest as a (monetary) transaction. The main aspect of Kaonashi is that he leads a sad little life, and doesn't understand how to do something about it, not that he is an agent responsible for promoting a social problem like prostitution.
Sen or Kaonashi reflect a little of all of us, and for the most part we are not all in danger of either becoming prostitutes or seeking services from a prostitute. If we limit the metaphor to having to do something with prostitution we lose some of its universality.
Chris Kuan added, "In my ignorant opinion, Miyazaki's explicit theme is about money and the debasement of oneself in order to accumulate material goods.
Obviously, this scenario applies to many different real-life actions, including sex-for-money (which is the common definition of "prostitution"), compensated dating, the fawning over customers that may happen at "posh" baths or spas, not to mention the actions of large companies needlessly degrading the natural environment to accumulate profits. . . I think No-Face was quite "happy" to gorge himself amidst the attention of the entire onsen staff, without apparently having it in mind to seek out Sen specifically. It was only when he saw her that he seemed to realise that the happiness he experienced in the exchange of true value (his procurement of the bath-tokens for Sen) was not necessarily the same as the satiation he was experiencing from buying attention.
I see also that the stink-god was corrupted not necessarily by his own avarice, but merely by the fact that others had accumulated more
possessions than they required, and had thoughtlessly dumped the waste into him.
Andrew Osmond wrote about German's message, "I don't think anyone would argue with the last line. (Certainly Miyazaki himself sees No face as a universal metaphor, going by his interview comments.) It's just that - in some posters' view - the prostitution thing is a particularly obvious _application_, given real-life trends in contemporary Japan."
Mike Arnold came in with, "I actually think German has an interesting idea here, but we also need to, well, look both ways before we cross the street. Miyazaki said things like this about Sen to Chihiro and Panda Kopanda at least. Maybe that means something particular about him, maybe it simply means he knows how to manipulate the medium well. But this voyeurism, for the lack of a better word, is part of the experience. I feel that in addition to the story itself, the films cinematically highlight the experience of us _viewing_ of the heroine and her actions as well. If this uncovers some kind of emptiness in our, or the director's, life, we should put some thought into it. . .
what is our role in this movie 'thing'? Miyazaki wanted the film to make his little "girlfriend" happy (that's a quote, not an insinuation), and we watch Chihiro struggle and (?) succeed in order to make ourselves happy. The film is apparently telling us that we should be filling our emptiness by getting out into the world and doing things, but what are we actually doing? Other filmmakers have tackled this contradiction in their work.
Andrew tossed back, "I've still failed to detect any 'voyeurism' in 'the experience of watching' Spirited Away (or Kiki, which you've also pointed to.) I suppose this might prove I'm 'in denial of my real feelings' but I've always found that answer to be (a) perilously circular and (b) pretty damn insulting.
Which is not to say the voyeuristic aspect may not be 'there,' at least for some viewers. (Random thought: Would a ten year-old kid - the official target audience - seeing SA be a 'voyeur' in the same way?) But I have an instinctive objection to people using highly abstract, arguably unverifiable theories to 'support' specific and pretty offensive innuendos against real individual people, whether movie directors or ML members.
Back to Mike, "Well it's just the way I felt. Of course we spend the two hours absorbed in the actions of this little girl, but instead of taking a view that allows us to experience it _through_ her, I feel like the experience is about _watching_ her. It almost seems easier to identify with characters like Kamaji, who appear to see more of the whole picture without taking it all so seriously.
Maybe that's also highlighted by the way the heroine is so often an 'other' -- not just an active female (that's pretty alien anyway) but the only witch in town, or a human princess among bugs, or a girl among monsters.
Ryoko Toyama solved a minor mystery by digging up the Japanese issue of "Premiere" with the semi-infamous "sex industry" quote that ended up in "Pulp", "The following is my translation of the part of the article. I don't claim that it's perfect, but I would try to be as accurate as possible.
Following some comments about Mononoke Hime, the article states, "Unlike the idyllic village in the Muromachi Era or the grand forest, the mysterious town (in Sen) even looks somewhat shady."
Then, the article continues with Miyazaki-San's quote, "When I was a child, there was literally a red-light district even in Shinjyuku. It is not intentional, but the film depicts the kind of skid road, which is a bit old and we've forgotten about. Traditionally, Japanese were open to sex before the Westerners who were appalled by our loose morals and pushed their morality."
Although the article does not state the interviewer's question, it seems that he asked about the difference between the "idyllic village and the grand forest" in Mononoke and the town in Sen, which contains somewhat "shady" part. And Miyazaki-San's comment seems to be the answer to the question, explaining that the world in Sen includes such shady part because that was what the old Japan used to have.
From the Pulp article; "Though I don't mean I want go back to advocate the old Japanese freedom of sex in my new film, I just think that the sex industry is the best thing to represent the reality of today's Japanese society."
To me, this seems that the translator took a little bit too much freedom in interpretation. Following the above-stated part, Miyazaki-San mentioned an example of "loose moral," and says, "I:m not saying that it should be resurrected (what this "it" means is open to interpretation), but I think that the sex industry is most adequate to depict today's world." (Then he goes on to criticize today's Japan.)
It may be a subtle difference, but I do feel that the translation in the Pulp article gives a different impression compared to my translation. . .
The article states that Mr. Suzuki said his theory of "Kaonashi=Miyazaki" though it was not clear if he meant it as a joke or seriously. Then, the article continues to Miyazaki-San's quote, "It is not. Well, I understand there are some elements of Kaonashi in many people. Because they react (to Kaonashi?) too strongly. It (Kaonashi?) is very kind. It helps Chihiro when she is in crisis. Chihiro let him in the bathhouse, since she thought that he shouldn't be there (outside?). But when he failed to lure Chihiro with gold and was told to go back to his parents, he runs wild. Everyone become like that, when one loses one's own temper. Everyone has libido, an indeterminate aggressive energy. All these things is the true form (of Kaonashi?). He has become such a character."
I don't say that the author of the Pulp article lied, but I feel that he manipulated Miyazaki-San's quote to gives a (somewhat misleading) impression that Miyazaki-San said something that can support his "theory,"
Michael Wojcik wrote, "I think Ryo is essentially right that the original _Premiere_ version doesn't support the "SA is about prostitution" reading the way the _Pulp_ translation appears to. That said, I don't think this contradicts Mike Arnold's argument that one of the themes of _Sen_ is the intrusion of money into relationships, that it's not a great stretch to see at least a reference to the sex industry in the film, and that it's not inconceivable that such reference is intentional. That's not nearly as sweeping a claim as the Jon Cook / Rob Blackwelder "it's all about prostitution"."
Lee Johnson spotted another Studio Ghibli item on the UK show "Film 2002".
Still living on borrowed (server) time.