"Lightyear" bombed, so who's to blame?
Should Disney and Pixar have cast Tim Allen?
Or should they have just left the "Toy Story" universe alone?
Everyone's got their guesses, but this is the real reason why "Lightyear" bombed at
the box office.
"Lightyear" still has a way to go at the box office, but, as of the making of this video,
it has earned a little less than $160 million worldwide against a reported $200 million
budget.
"What?"
The big problem is that it has to contend with competition in the form of "Minions:
The Rise of Gru," which is going to cut into its legs at the domestic box office.
"Lightyear" opened with a soft $50.5 million, losing out to "Jurassic World Dominion," which
was in its second weekend of release.
This is on the very low end for a Pixar film and, even though it marked the biggest opening
weekend for an animated film since the pandemic began, it's all relative in the movie business.
The steep decline in its second weekend signaled things were going to go from bad to worse.
"Oh, I forgot.
You're broken.
I don't want to play with you anymore."
That $200 million budget doesn't account for marketing, meaning that the film probably
cost well over $300 million all told.
And, given that studios only see roughly half of the money earned at the box office after
theaters take their cut, Disney isn't going to get anywhere near profit during the theatrical
run of this movie.
No two ways about it: this is not what Disney had in mind when they opted to get creative
with the "Toy Story" franchise and gave the green light to this spin-off.
So what happened?
Angus MacLane, the same filmmaker who helped to make "Finding Dory" a $1 billion hit, was
in the director's chair, with Chris Evans on board as the voice of Buzz Lightyear.
Those pieces didn't add up to a hit this time.
But why, exactly?
It's easy to see how Disney would be won over by the idea of a "Toy Story" spin-off centered
on Buzz Lightyear, especially with the guy who played Captain America taking on the lead
role.
That allowed the filmmakers to craft a sci-fi adventure tale with some familiar imagery
to anchor it.
That seems like a hit on paper.
However, in practice, it seems this is simply a movie that not enough people in the marketplace
were clamoring for.
There was also an issue with the marketing, as social media was awash with jokes about
the somewhat convoluted premise.
Producer Galyn Susman even had to address this confusion just as the movie was making
its way to theaters, admitting:
"People were having a hard enough time wrapping their heads around this.
So really we needed the toy in the 'Toy Story' universe to be its own thing.
Tim Allen is Buzz Lightyear the toy.
Chris Evans is Buzz Lightyear, the superhero from that movie that inspired the toy."
Ultimately, this was meant to be the movie that Andy from "Toy Story" watched that inspired
the toy Buzz Lightyear.
To what degree the marketing is responsible for the film's failure is difficult to measure
precisely, but the big thing is that Disney may have overestimated the reach this film
could have, even if it probably felt like as close to a sure thing as the movie business
is capable of affording a studio.
One thing that some fans of the franchise seemed to be missing was actor Tim Allen,
who is deeply associated with the character of Buzz Lightyear.
"I'm Buzz Lightyear, space ranger, universe protection unit."
Granted, the filmmakers have made it clear that Allen is the toy and Chris Evans is the
character in the in-universe film.
Still, the absence of the voice that anchored four "Toy Story" films was felt.
It even generated controversy as actress Patricia Heaton said on Twitter,
"Disney/Pixar made a HUGE mistake in not casting my pal Tim Allen.
Tim Allen in the role that he originated, the role that he owns.
Tim IS Buzz!
Why would they completely castrate this iconic, beloved character?"
"What?
What are you talking about?"
Although it's unlikely for a large enough number of fans frustrated over Tim Allen's
absence to account for the lackluster box office overall, it may well have had an impact.
During the pandemic, Disney had to make some very tough choices when theater closures delayed
the release of major films.
One key decision was releasing both "Soul" and "Luca" directly to Disney+ at no additional
cost, much like they did with "Onward," which had its theatrical run cut very short by the
early days of the pandemic.
In contrast, movies like "Black Widow" and "Mulan" were released via Disney+ Premier
Access, meaning subscribers had to pay an additional $30 to watch them upon release.
This, in turn, may have changed the way viewers valued Pixar as a brand, as its price was
effectively set at "free."
This perception may have been furthered when "Turning Red," a $175 million-budgeted Pixar
original, was also released directly to Disney+ at no additional cost to subscribers earlier
in 2022.
This was done at a time when theaters were seeing solid business, which may have signaled
to viewers that Pixar is something that can now be seen for free at home.
In turn, "Lightyear" and other future Pixar films may have been damaged by this altered
perception.
Consumer habits are easy to change and two years worth of Pixar going directly to Disney+
may well have been enough to do exactly that.
Disney has some difficult decisions to make in the wake of "Lightyear" underperforming
at the box office.
Those decisions may not be made right away, but the future of Pixar may well hinge on
how the studio responds to this setback.
In the meantime, there are a couple of big lessons that can be extracted from the somewhat
surprising failure this film has endured.
First and foremost, Hollywood remains very franchise-obsessed.
Franchise films are as close to a guarantee as any studio can get in the ever-changing,
streaming-dominated marketplace.
That said, just because something is connected to a franchise doesn't mean that people automatically
want to see it.
Sony had to learn that the hard way with "Morbius."
"In certain respects, I have succeeded far beyond anything I could have imagined."
It can certainly be a leg-up on the path to success, but it's no guarantee.
Perhaps a "Toy Story" spin-off of some kind could have been successful, but this clearly
wasn't the winning formula.
Beyond that, Pixar was once one of the most reliable brands in all of cinema: A string
of hits spanning nearly three decades and close to $15 billion at the global box office.
And it all started with "Toy Story."
Not only that, but this was a brand that was capable of churning out original hits regularly
as well as sequels.
The fact that Disney so quickly opted to turn these expensive, potential box office hits
into streaming plays now feels like a major error.
Yes, Disney+ and streaming is a big part of the company's future, but Pixar may have been
devalued as a result of these choices, and that just might prove to be a costly decision
in the long run.
Check out one of our newest videos right here!
Plus, even more Slash Film videos about your favorite sci-fi movies and TV shows are coming
soon.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell so you don't miss a single one.