I'm really tired of hearing people complain about how movies suck. Because 1) I've heard it over and over, and 2) bad films seem to have no impact on your average moviegoers' choices. In other words, sucky movies sell. Big time.

Just go to boxofficemojo.com to see how much all the so-called stinkers raked in.

People can lament the quality of movies all they want, but unless people stop paying to see them, Hollywood is going to keep shoving this crap down their sheep-like gullets.

You get what you ask for.

Seven or eight months? He's being too kind. Try five years of suck.

Scott,

You're a Pixar fanatic - do you agree with Katzenberg's assessment of Ratatouille, that amazing execution overcame a shaky concept?

It seems to me that Ratatouille is as high concept as anything - a scavenging rat wants to become a great chef. They do a great job early on to make sure we aren't queasy about it. Near the end they even put all the nasty rats through the dishwasher so we know they are clean. I might even venture that watching Mario Batalli cook is more nauseating, sometimes, than watching Remy.

In terms of execution, I would have to agree. What a wonderful film. I always thought that the French theme and some of the dark shades in the animation might be tough for kids and/or US audiences, but 200 million/600 million worldwide says not.

Here's the thing:

We all know it doesn't have to be like this. I don't see a footnote anywhere near the Hollywood sign that reads, "we must maintain a steady output of suck."

But ANY industry where FEAR is the main engine pushing things forward (or, in this case, sideways, and possibly, at any given time of the day, backwards) is going to provide a faulty product.

Case in point - I used to work for General Motors as an I.T. dude. My job was to implement hardware and software into dealerships (which were still using pen and paper for everything, front office and back office, as recently as 2004! Most dealerships had one computer on site and it usually was running Windows 95!) Long story short, they lost their shirt again and again because everyone was afraid to make a decision. To make a decision meant that you were responsible when it all went foul - - which, if you folks know anything about the I.T. racket, things almost always do.

Funny (and slightly sad) anecdote) - I was dispatched to a cluster of dealerships in central wisconsin to do a major install. But the hardware never showed up. When I inquired as to why not, I was told that they couldn't quite come to terms with who to go with (I believe it was an HP or DELL type decision). I asked, "So what do you want me to do? Should I just go home?" They told me to stay put, they'd put me up in a hotel.

And this went on.

For two weeks.

I finally brought my family over and they stayed with me, all on GM's coin. And I got paid for two weeks to lounge poolside (thank you GM!), drink beer (no, thank YOU, GM!), and write a second draft of a screenplay (see, I WAS a paid writer! THANK YOU GM!!!)

And every day, about 7am, I checked in.... "Hardware today?"

"Nope."

"Want me to head back to HQ?"

"No, Jeff, you'd better stay there, if I send you back, I'll get in trouble."

"Okey-doke..."

I have a sneaking sensation that GM and Hollywood are pretty much on the same page. It's all about fear, baby.

Except I don't see the government bailing out Hollywood...

... but who knows? The day is young.

The box office revenue for a lot of the crappy movies is inflated by the surcharge for 3D. A #-of-tickets-bought would be a better tool of comparison for the relative popularity of 3D versus non-3D movies. In short, 3D movies are less well attended than their box office revenue would imply.

I totally agree with Katzenberg. Terrible idea for a kids movie. I watched this with my three year old niece, who just wanted to see the rats run around, which was fine. But for children say, 5 to 12 who might actually want to understand more of the story, there was one big problem: the threat. The looming threat at the end of the film is that critic Anton Ego will give the restaurant a bad review. It's too cerebral, too adult for kids, As if they care about or even really understand restaurant reviews and their career ramifications and what that means emotionally. I think if kids got anything at all out of Ratatouille, it was simply what my niece got out of it: funny rats running around. This was one where the finer points of story didn't match the intended audience and why it doesn't rank with Pixar's greats. But, of course, the animation was beautiful and the characters great. And it's Pixar, so it's going to make bank.

@Annika -

"This was one where the finer points of story didn't match the intended audience and why it doesn't rank with Pixar's greats."

This is my favorite Pixar movie, and it is because they didn't dumb down the story to cater to the five-year olds in the audience.

The reveal at the end, with Anton Ego getting a flashback to his childhood, is obviously something a child can't grasp as well as an adult, but it brings me to tears every single time I watch it, and it makes this film a film for the ages, not just "all ages."

My guess is that your niece will watch this again when she gets older and she will understand the finer points of this story. She will probably appreciate it even more when she has the childhood memory of watching this with her aunt and also being able to explore this story again and understanding the great message.

Same thing for the 5 - 12-year olds. For them it could have been enough that there WAS a threat, even though they might not grasp the exact REASON for that threat.

Annika, Teddy - I never thought the threat was a potentially negative review, but that that Remy and Linguini were going to get outed.

That a review describes rats in the kitchen would just be a consequence of the bigger reveal that Remy and Linguini are lying to everyone. I think most kids get that.

I often wonder how children respond to the animation style itself. It is very different than Cars, for example. Much less cartoony, with references to French art and advertising. It really appealed to me, but does it appeal to everyone?

Story notwithstanding, I wonder how the artwork in next year's 'Brave' will appeal to people in different age groups.

There was so much build up to the review Ego was going to write - how many stars (or whatever symbol was used) would the place get? Would the restaurant be made or broken? How much power Ego had just by publishing a column in a paper. I didn't see how kids could care about any of that, even older kids.

But Gabe might be onto something. If you split the jeopardy into two threats (1. being outed 2. the review) Pixar may have deliberately set up one more obvious, action-oriented threat for the kids, another more cerebral threat for the adults in the audience. Heck, what do I mean "may have". Pixar being Pixar, I'm sure that was deliberate.

Gabe and Annika, good points all around. The two threats should cover both angles - kids and adults.

Per the larger point about the general 'suckitude' of current movies, while overall I think Katzenberg's point -- the quality of movies is a cyclical thing -- is valid, I suspect there is a special contributing factor to what's transpiring with movies currently in release (by currently, I mean this year): If you recall about 2 years ago, some of the studios just stopped buying spec scripts. They actually put the word out to agents and managers, "Don't send us material for possible sales because we ain't buying."

This was part of an apparent 'race to the bottom' by the studios, not consciously in terms of quality, but rather to burn through scripts they had in their development slates and to see how few movies they could produce and release, still cover overhead costs, and result in profits. That's why in January of this year, there were (I believe) only 9 movies released, a record low for any month ever from Hollywood.

My argument would be that in that race to the bottom, it was inevitable some inferior movies would emerge. Projects that have been kicking around on development slates for years tend to be problematic ones. So after the studios released all their good movies and started drilling down into what they had left, they ended up with a bunch of the movies we see coming out this year. Combined with a slew of sequels, prequels, remakes and pre-branded brand titles to fill out their release slates. All in all, a pretty meh array of films.

Then as could be expected, the word went out from the studios about a year ago, "We want original material!" And now those studios which weren't buying specs are back in that business again, a big contributing factor why spec sales are up over 60% this year compared to last year.

So yes, cyclical, but this particular cycle of 'sucky' movies is in part due to a business decision to cut costs, burn through development slates, and see how low the studios could go in terms of the numbers of movies they could produce and still be profitable.

@Ratatouille: I think all Katzenberg was saying is that the very concept -- a rat in a kitchen -- is a tough sell. Not necessarily to kids, but to adults which comprise one major component of any four quadrant movie, and even kid's movies because they have to attend with their kids.

I guess it would be if I came up with a pitch for a new superhero: Turd Boy! Although aimed at adolescents raised on "South Park," that concept might not stink after all.

Yes, pun intended.

Omg I loved Ratatouille, and I think the monkey, now 5 (and who just spent an hour secretively running around putting together a restaurant with hand drawn menus, and colorful food from construction paper and tape and beads, even coasters for the drinks, and 5 star waiter behavior), would totally get wanting the critic to like the food.

Rat in kitchen, never thought about it that way, Katzenberg has a fine point. Three increasingly catastrophic attempts to organic vegetable garden, culminating in unwanted houseguest and "ninja with the tongs" label (tmi?), and learning more than I ever wanted to know about rats (but evidently learning exactly what I needed to know), I can now say trader joe's is perfect solution for procuring organic vegetables and no composting in the middle of a city. As soon as I'm ready to face a rat again, we're watching the film with the monkey.

Pixar makes art of everything.

I'd like to steer the discussion toward the jury ruling on the Panda lawsuit for a moment. How does this affect everyone's approach to pitching ideas now? Does the ruling give you pause? Because, just from reading that excerpt from the article, it sounds like the teacher-philosopher-warrior-king was ripped off.

@Jeffery. I was very amused by your story. I once had a job in corporate America where I flew first class all over the country, stayed at 5 star Hotels taking clients out to lunch at 5 star restaurants. All under expense account. I was under orders not to do any business. Just schmooze. I quit after 2 years as I was bored out of my mind. It occurred to me that the Corp. I worked for was already successful and didn't want to change the status quo. They had a monopoly on their product. No changes necessary. A lot like Hollywood today. Watch what people do, not what they say.

@CJ: It is a big issue in Hollywood. And while situations like Kung Fu Panda aren't all that common, a more likely scenario is this:

Studio A sends out word to reps about an OWA (open writing assignment).

Reps send in Writers A-Y to pitch their take on the material.

Studio does not hire any of Writers A-Y, instead giving gig to Writer Z with whom they have a first-look or overall deal.

And somehow some / many of the ideas pitched by Writers A-Y end up in Movie A.

[A variation is studio hires one of the writers A-Y, then gives them a set of notes with 'ideas' they've 'generated' about the story.]

There is nothing a writer can do about it -- directly. How can you prove anything? The studio can always say, "Well, we already had that story element when you pitched it to us."

I'm guessing it doesn't happen with A-list writers as they don't have to go up against other writers in a cattle call like that, so one way to guard against the practice: Become an A-list writer!

Short of that, you can (1) decline to go up for cattle call OWAs, which is really hard to do if you want to work as a writer in Hwood, (2) only work on your own original material -- specs, pitches, or (3) get as much of an assurance beforehand via your reps communicating with studio how many writers are up for the OWA. Some times they'll tell you: "We're only looking at 5 writers." Then perhaps not so much of a cattle call, less odds against you, less chance you'll get ripped off. Of course, they could fudge those numbers, too, and actually there are 10 or more writers who pitch the project.

Again your best bet is to generate enough of heat and reputation that studio is motivated to work with you, thus zeroing in on you and not putting assignment up for multiple pitches.

In other words, there is no ideal situation, it's tricky, everybody knows it goes on, and it's been part of the business for a long time.

In terms of an outsider or newbie with a story, this is yet more of a reason to write a spec script. A pitch is a malleable entity, much more gray area in terms of IP. A screenplay is more definable, you have a specific story written on specific pages. Much easier to use that in a court case than some oral version of a pitch.

Thanks for the explanation, Scott.

I'm pretty sure Disney bought the story for Ratatouille. Brad Bird mentions it was something Disney had in development that they could never get to work.

I'd put money on it, that it was bought for the title. Look, it's a rat that makes Ratatouille! Get it!

And some dumb Disney exec thought that was genius.

As they tried to get the story to work, they couldn't. They even tried making the rat look less like a rat and more like a really friendly big-eye'd mouse. Nothing worked.

Mainly because there was nothing there. No substance. It wasn't a high concept anything. It was simply a bad pun.

Brad Bird stepped onboard and gave the project direction. How? Because he's simply a master storyteller. He really could take anything and turn it into an interesting compelling story. Pretty sure that's what he did with Ratatouille.

I'm also pretty sure Katzenberg is privy to much more detail and backstory on the subject than I am. I'd guess his comments are a reflection of that.

Some dumb Disney exec bought a dumb piece of IP on a bad pun. And PIXAR had enough talent to actually make it good.

That's probably what his comments are about.