Hoppers? More like Floppers, amirite? What excuse does Pixar have to continue as an animation studio?
>Good Dinosaur makes $300mil>OOF WHAT A FLOP>Hoppers makes $300mil>FINALLY PIXAR HAS A HIT ON THEIR HANDSReally sad how the mighty has fallen so much that they had to change the standard just to not admit defeat.
>>153104144I recently watched Hoppers and I found it serviceable. Definitely not their greatest but not nearly as bad as something like Good Dinosaur or Lightyear or as forgettable as Onward (made you remember that existed by typing it, didn't I?).The director Daniel Chong made the show We Bare Bears and this feels like something from that universe. It feels like a cartoon special more than a big cinematic event. Not sure why Pixar has been going this direction but what makes a movie a movie is more than just the length of it.
>>153104178Also $300 million in the good dinosaur era was worth a lot more than it is in 2026. Also, with production and marketing, Hoppers cost atleast $250 million.
>>153104190They had to edit out alot of the woke messaging and propaganda deep into its production, similar to how they had to edit the faggotry out of Elio because it tested so bad with audiences.
>>153104241Yeah, I was surprised how they held back with Mabel's character as a self-righteous leftist activist who loves animals and hates the town's mayor. She could have been much worse and I appreciated how they show she doesn't want the mayor to die (unlike so many radical online activists I see nowadays) she just wants him to compromise.I'm sure the original drafts for the movie made her so annoying she became too unlikable to root for. As is, she's mildly annoying at worst and sympathetic at best. You can understand why she wants to protect the forest so much because of her grandmother but also see how naive and juvenile her thinking is.
>>153104144I really liked it, probably the first Pixar movie I sincerly enjoyed in years. I already wanted to watch it from the first reactions but I'm gonna be honest. It was skimming over these thread and watching the fanarts (Mabel is really cute) the thing that made me decide to watch it this week before Mario took over all the cinemas. And I'm really glad that I did, thank you 4chan.I wish I watched it before so I could be on the thread when they were more active.
>>153104330They really made a good job at making a flawed character who isn't unbearable. That's something VERY hard to do on a story, specially nowadays.
>>153104408If more writers could figure this out a lot of shows and movies would be better received. Imagine how well a show like Velma could have done if Velma herself wasn't such an unlikable asswipe. Still would have had to go through a ton of rewrites to make it a good Scooby-Doo spin-off, but having a good main character is the first step.
>>153104144>another thread based entirely around misusing the word "flop"You guys are insufferable.
>>153104564Look, a film like this was never going to make $1 billion dollars in the box office. I would not consider Hoppers a flop but in the current media landscape, it might as well be to Disney Pixar.Funny enough, not even 2000s Pixar could manage to have a film make $1 billion. Toy Story, the Incredibles and Finding Nemo had to permeate the cultural zeitgeist for over a decade for them to gain the relevance needed to make that money. The first films of those franchises did not make a billion make they were new original ideas once. Studios need to be willing to risk it over original ideas so they have more future billion dollar films in the future. Unfortunately, everyone in Hollywood seems so one track minded. But a film like Hoppers does not scream franchise, more like one-off with maybe a sequel or tv series.
>>153104564Financially it was a huge flop. Review-wise it got good reviews from paid off Disney critics.
>>153104241I believe Pete Docter was responsible for forcing to alter some of the film's original idea by swifting its focus away from targeted autobiological appeal to something of a universal appeal for every (general) audiences they can approach.
>>153104144I bet they still fire half the team
>>153104144Nope, no floppers. That is amazing!
>>153104178Good Dinosaur’s budget was 175-200 million compared to Hoppers’ 150 million, and the latter looks like it’s continuing to make money.
>>153104144Online I don’t see excitement about itIRL my normie white collar groupchats have all texted when they went to see it and they love it, their kids loved itI think the demo just isn’t you
>>153104664>It's budget was 150$ million, that means it needed to make 500$ trillion in costs or it fucked up>>153104241>>153104330>>153104408>>153104506Why is Israel shrilling against Pixar now? I don't get it. Your psy-op priorities are so confusing.
>>153107715I know math is very difficult, especially for women, and you would love to have your own real pussy some day after you finally chop off that floppy dick. Let me man's plain it for you. 150M budget + marketing costs (X2) = 300M the movie cost to make. 332M box office earnings - ticket fees (50% local, up to 75% foreign, let's simply say all was local) = 167M earned in theaters. 167M earnings - 300M production cost = a loss of 133M. But don't worry anon. They throw this later on a streaming platform and say that it made gazillions through alarcy even though it's not true. So it's fine, your favorite garbage won't be treated as a shit stain in the history books.
>>153104144It was fine.A competent script, competent designs, competent direction and editing and VO, a textbook 7/10
