One Incredibly Long Article On 3D Animation
In the same vein of 2D versus 3D animation, I’d like to make note that I along with many others predicted a long time ago that the abundance of 3D animation only a phase. The big companies would eventually realize one day that 3D animation wasn’t a surefire way to make money and that it’s more in the story and presentation that counts.And it looks like we were right:
For the feature animation business, it's possible that more could be less.
In 2004, the average box office for an animated pic was $149 million. This year, it's $88 million. But then, there are 50% more toons in release this year than in '04. Three toons have bowed in the past three weeks: Sony's "Monster House," Warner Bros.' "Ant Bully" and Paramount's "Barnyard."
Throughout this article, I’m going to be making my own little comments on each of these films as they’re mentioned by mentioning the title and typing up my 2 cents in parenthesis in following. For example, “Monster House” (The girlfriend said it was cool), “Ant Bully” (Looks like a rental) and “Barnyard (Suckfest.) There, you get the idea. Now, on with the article:
The bullish spirit of several years ago, when all these projects began production, has given way to introspection: How much is too much?
CGI-animated pics once were seen as the safe, flop-proof arm of the biz, but the 2006 box office is upending that optimistic view. Before this year, the only CGI failure ever was last summer's "Valiant," but this year has already seen three: "Doogal," "The Wild" and "The Ant Bully." One or two more are likely before the year is out.
In my opinion, it’s not just the abundance of these kinds of movies that’s hurting the industry, but it’s also lack of good story and presentation that make movies like “Valiant” (Was cute, but McGregor can do better) “Doogal” (replacing British voices with an American cast, doesn’t stop the movie from being crap) and “The Wild” (“Madagascar” + “The Lion King” + “Finding Nemo” = lacking originality) fall on their bottoms in the theatres.
The news is not entirely glum: Animation box office is on track to beat the $1.2 billion record set in 2004.
But that record year was largely due to just two movies, "Shrek 2" and "The Incredibles," which together grossed $702 million. This year, the only unqualified hit is "Ice Age: the Meltdown," with a solid $195 million at home and an astounding $461 million overseas.
The Weinstein Co.'s "Hoodwinked" nabbed $51 million, making it a success considering its tiny budget.
I’m gonna break the mold here for a sec.
Shrek 2: Better than the original.
The Incredibles: Surprisingly better than I’d anticipated.
Ice Age 2: The Meltdown: Looks like a rental
Hoodwinked: Why, Anne Hathaway, why?!
What we can learn from this is that good movies will make good profits. Meanwhile, stupid looking movies will do the same so long as they have a cheap enough budget.
Otherwise, the picture is less jubilant for the seven other toons released to date (six of them CG).
"Cars" purred to an animated $235 million in domestic B.O. But pic is Pixar's lowest grosser since "A Bug's Life" in 1998. Disney had pushed back the original November release date to summer, emulating the release pattern of its top pic, "Finding Nemo," which had a domestic cume of $339 million. But "Cars" ended up doing worse than "The Incredibles" and "Monsters, Inc.," the animation studio's last two November openers.
Similarly, "Over the Hedge," while certainly not a flop with $152 million, is DreamWorks Animation's second lowest-grossing CGI pic and its lowest-ever summer CGI release.
Now we’re seeing an interesting effect here. Pixar, the company that created the 3D animated movie genre, is starting to suffer ever so slightly from it as their profits are still high, yet not so high as they once were. But I guess that’s because when movies like “Cars” (Exceeded expectations quite handsomely) roll along in their company, it’s just another movie that doesn’t do quite as well and doesn’t really hurt. Meanwhile, Dreamworks, the company that decided it was a good idea to flood us with 3D animation in the first place, is seeing the same with “Over the Hedge” (Looks good, can’ wait to see it.)
The industry has been through this kind of cycle before. After Disney toons like "The Lion King" started making big bucks in the early '90s, both Fox and Warner Bros. entered the market, only to pull back after costly flops like "Titan A.E." and "The Iron Giant." The one animation newbie of the '90s who stuck with it was DreamWorks, led by former Mouse House animation topper Jeffrey Katzenberg.
I hadn’t realized before that “The Lion King” (A classic, indisputably) had that sort of effect on Hollywood, but I remember when both “Titan A. E.” (Excellent, bold move by Don Bluth) and “The Iron Giant” (Deserving of flopping) kicked the bucket. Of course this concept is what led folks like Michael Eisner and the Dreamworks execs think that 3D was the second coming of Christ.
Tightly bunched release dates certainly have played a part in the downward trend. "The Wild" came out just two weeks after "Ice Age," while "Over the Hedge" and "Cars" were three weeks apart.
Well, yunno, maybe “The Wild” flopped due to sucking. You never know.
By contrast, last year "Robots," "Madagascar" and "Chicken Little" all had a two-month buffer on either side with no CG toons.
And on a side note, I still think “Robots” (Was ok), “Madagascar” (See my review) and “Chicken Little” (abysmal despite the profits) were what made last year’s animated movie experience less than enjoyable for me.
"You don't have the luxury of just grabbing those key beginning-of-summer or traditional Disney November release dates," notes Sony Pictures Animation exec VP Penney Finkelman Cox.
Next year won't offer much relief. While the number of toons will decline somewhat, there are still numerous key releases bunched closely together. WB's "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" and Disney's "Meet the Robinsons" currently are skedded for the same day in March. Pixar's "Ratatouille," Sony's "Surf's Up" and DWA's "Shrek the Third" all come out in a six-week span during the summer.
I will agree that releasing these movies closely together is not such a good move, which is why next March, “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” (Looks badass) and “Meet the Robinsons” (Looks amusing) had best find different release dates. As for “Ratatouille” (So far, I’m totally there) “Surf’s Up” (sounds radical) and “Shrek the Third” (My fingers are crossed till I see something on it), that bunch had best watch it as well.
The real challenge may not just be getting auds to go to a CGI toon when there are others already in theaters. It's making each one stand out in people's minds, especially when so many of them feature wisecracking talking animals.
"I don't know that it's so much the medium as whether you have something truly compelling that can stand out from a pack of films that, by and large, look the same," observes one distribution exec.
The fall brings similar challenges for the industry, as "Everyone's Hero" and "Open Season" open two weeks apart in September and "Happy Feet" hits theaters two weeks after "Flushed Away" in November.
Wow, it looks like the industry keeps making the same mistake over and over again releasing “Everyone’s Hero” (Christopher Reeve’s swan song is looking alright) and “Open Season” (Doesn’t fit the bill) so close together. And then again with “Happy Feet” (Been looking forward to it for years) and “Flushed Away” (Aardman usually does great.) Shouldn’t someone in Hollywood have already taken note of this yet?
IDT's "Hero" (which Fox is distributing) and Sony Pictures Animation's "Season" represent the first foray for those studios into the CG space, while "Happy Feet" is only the second for Warner, after the disappointing "Ant Bully." All three are important for studios hoping they can compete in animation.
And with its stock currently hovering near an all-time low, DreamWorks Animation is hoping "Flushed Away" will exceed expectations, rather than prove a mild disappointment like its last two releases "Hedge" and "Wallace and Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit."
Summer is, of course, the prime playing time for animated family pics, as kids are out of school. For the $100 million-plus "Open Season" and "Flushed," coming out of the fray with more than $150 million will have to be considered a success, while the less expensive "Happy Feet" and "Hero" have a more modest bar to pass.
In addition, three of the four include talking animals -- "Everyone's Hero" has a talking baseball bat and ball -- meaning execs face the same challenges.
Just a year ago, overseeing animation seemed like one of the most comfortable places for a Hollywood exec to be sitting. But 2006 is proving that toons take just as much intestinal fortitude as the rest of the biz.
In short, a good movie with good appeal is what really will make money. Riding on the coattails of another movie only works so much.
For the feature animation business, it's possible that more could be less.
In 2004, the average box office for an animated pic was $149 million. This year, it's $88 million. But then, there are 50% more toons in release this year than in '04. Three toons have bowed in the past three weeks: Sony's "Monster House," Warner Bros.' "Ant Bully" and Paramount's "Barnyard."
Throughout this article, I’m going to be making my own little comments on each of these films as they’re mentioned by mentioning the title and typing up my 2 cents in parenthesis in following. For example, “Monster House” (The girlfriend said it was cool), “Ant Bully” (Looks like a rental) and “Barnyard (Suckfest.) There, you get the idea. Now, on with the article:
The bullish spirit of several years ago, when all these projects began production, has given way to introspection: How much is too much?
CGI-animated pics once were seen as the safe, flop-proof arm of the biz, but the 2006 box office is upending that optimistic view. Before this year, the only CGI failure ever was last summer's "Valiant," but this year has already seen three: "Doogal," "The Wild" and "The Ant Bully." One or two more are likely before the year is out.
In my opinion, it’s not just the abundance of these kinds of movies that’s hurting the industry, but it’s also lack of good story and presentation that make movies like “Valiant” (Was cute, but McGregor can do better) “Doogal” (replacing British voices with an American cast, doesn’t stop the movie from being crap) and “The Wild” (“Madagascar” + “The Lion King” + “Finding Nemo” = lacking originality) fall on their bottoms in the theatres.
The news is not entirely glum: Animation box office is on track to beat the $1.2 billion record set in 2004.
But that record year was largely due to just two movies, "Shrek 2" and "The Incredibles," which together grossed $702 million. This year, the only unqualified hit is "Ice Age: the Meltdown," with a solid $195 million at home and an astounding $461 million overseas.
The Weinstein Co.'s "Hoodwinked" nabbed $51 million, making it a success considering its tiny budget.
I’m gonna break the mold here for a sec.
Shrek 2: Better than the original.
The Incredibles: Surprisingly better than I’d anticipated.
Ice Age 2: The Meltdown: Looks like a rental
Hoodwinked: Why, Anne Hathaway, why?!
What we can learn from this is that good movies will make good profits. Meanwhile, stupid looking movies will do the same so long as they have a cheap enough budget.
Otherwise, the picture is less jubilant for the seven other toons released to date (six of them CG).
"Cars" purred to an animated $235 million in domestic B.O. But pic is Pixar's lowest grosser since "A Bug's Life" in 1998. Disney had pushed back the original November release date to summer, emulating the release pattern of its top pic, "Finding Nemo," which had a domestic cume of $339 million. But "Cars" ended up doing worse than "The Incredibles" and "Monsters, Inc.," the animation studio's last two November openers.
Similarly, "Over the Hedge," while certainly not a flop with $152 million, is DreamWorks Animation's second lowest-grossing CGI pic and its lowest-ever summer CGI release.
Now we’re seeing an interesting effect here. Pixar, the company that created the 3D animated movie genre, is starting to suffer ever so slightly from it as their profits are still high, yet not so high as they once were. But I guess that’s because when movies like “Cars” (Exceeded expectations quite handsomely) roll along in their company, it’s just another movie that doesn’t do quite as well and doesn’t really hurt. Meanwhile, Dreamworks, the company that decided it was a good idea to flood us with 3D animation in the first place, is seeing the same with “Over the Hedge” (Looks good, can’ wait to see it.)
The industry has been through this kind of cycle before. After Disney toons like "The Lion King" started making big bucks in the early '90s, both Fox and Warner Bros. entered the market, only to pull back after costly flops like "Titan A.E." and "The Iron Giant." The one animation newbie of the '90s who stuck with it was DreamWorks, led by former Mouse House animation topper Jeffrey Katzenberg.
I hadn’t realized before that “The Lion King” (A classic, indisputably) had that sort of effect on Hollywood, but I remember when both “Titan A. E.” (Excellent, bold move by Don Bluth) and “The Iron Giant” (Deserving of flopping) kicked the bucket. Of course this concept is what led folks like Michael Eisner and the Dreamworks execs think that 3D was the second coming of Christ.
Tightly bunched release dates certainly have played a part in the downward trend. "The Wild" came out just two weeks after "Ice Age," while "Over the Hedge" and "Cars" were three weeks apart.
Well, yunno, maybe “The Wild” flopped due to sucking. You never know.
By contrast, last year "Robots," "Madagascar" and "Chicken Little" all had a two-month buffer on either side with no CG toons.
And on a side note, I still think “Robots” (Was ok), “Madagascar” (See my review) and “Chicken Little” (abysmal despite the profits) were what made last year’s animated movie experience less than enjoyable for me.
"You don't have the luxury of just grabbing those key beginning-of-summer or traditional Disney November release dates," notes Sony Pictures Animation exec VP Penney Finkelman Cox.
Next year won't offer much relief. While the number of toons will decline somewhat, there are still numerous key releases bunched closely together. WB's "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" and Disney's "Meet the Robinsons" currently are skedded for the same day in March. Pixar's "Ratatouille," Sony's "Surf's Up" and DWA's "Shrek the Third" all come out in a six-week span during the summer.
I will agree that releasing these movies closely together is not such a good move, which is why next March, “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” (Looks badass) and “Meet the Robinsons” (Looks amusing) had best find different release dates. As for “Ratatouille” (So far, I’m totally there) “Surf’s Up” (sounds radical) and “Shrek the Third” (My fingers are crossed till I see something on it), that bunch had best watch it as well.
The real challenge may not just be getting auds to go to a CGI toon when there are others already in theaters. It's making each one stand out in people's minds, especially when so many of them feature wisecracking talking animals.
"I don't know that it's so much the medium as whether you have something truly compelling that can stand out from a pack of films that, by and large, look the same," observes one distribution exec.
The fall brings similar challenges for the industry, as "Everyone's Hero" and "Open Season" open two weeks apart in September and "Happy Feet" hits theaters two weeks after "Flushed Away" in November.
Wow, it looks like the industry keeps making the same mistake over and over again releasing “Everyone’s Hero” (Christopher Reeve’s swan song is looking alright) and “Open Season” (Doesn’t fit the bill) so close together. And then again with “Happy Feet” (Been looking forward to it for years) and “Flushed Away” (Aardman usually does great.) Shouldn’t someone in Hollywood have already taken note of this yet?
IDT's "Hero" (which Fox is distributing) and Sony Pictures Animation's "Season" represent the first foray for those studios into the CG space, while "Happy Feet" is only the second for Warner, after the disappointing "Ant Bully." All three are important for studios hoping they can compete in animation.
And with its stock currently hovering near an all-time low, DreamWorks Animation is hoping "Flushed Away" will exceed expectations, rather than prove a mild disappointment like its last two releases "Hedge" and "Wallace and Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit."
Summer is, of course, the prime playing time for animated family pics, as kids are out of school. For the $100 million-plus "Open Season" and "Flushed," coming out of the fray with more than $150 million will have to be considered a success, while the less expensive "Happy Feet" and "Hero" have a more modest bar to pass.
In addition, three of the four include talking animals -- "Everyone's Hero" has a talking baseball bat and ball -- meaning execs face the same challenges.
Just a year ago, overseeing animation seemed like one of the most comfortable places for a Hollywood exec to be sitting. But 2006 is proving that toons take just as much intestinal fortitude as the rest of the biz.
In short, a good movie with good appeal is what really will make money. Riding on the coattails of another movie only works so much.
posted by Jaimetud at 2:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home