Will Disney buy DWA? No! Universal did!

[ShyViolet]

Hmmm....

https://tv.yahoo.com/news/jeffrey-katze ... 03408.html

[Ben]

Well, what else did you expect him to say?

[LotsoA113]

Well, what else did you expect him to say?

I would have loved it if he got extremely agitated at everyone talking bad about his company and yelled "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"

[Ben]

Yeah, his shirt rips, he grows bigger in size and anger and...becomes...Shrek!

[EricJ]

Well, what else did you expect him to say?

Yeah, but it's that kind of cheery tanks-rolling-in-behind talk that makes stockholders sue at the end of a bad quarter...

[ShyViolet]

Interesting:

http://m.wsj.com/articles/jeffrey-katze ... 6?mobile=y

[Ben]

Um...isn't he just speaking the obvious!?

For months people have been speculating just how high box-office will be next year with the number of HUGE and highly anticipated franchise releases coming out. As if Avengers 2 and Star Wars 7 isn't enough, we've got James Bond, Jurassic World, plus any number of sure to do well sequels (Terminator, Hunger Games, Mission: 5, Fast & Furious) and originals like Tomorrowland, and more from Pixar and Marvel.

It's an INSANE year, woth 2016 shaping up to be just as big, so I don't get how JK can come out and make a proclamation when it's obvious that 2015 is going to be a huge year for everyone. When I saw the title there I thought he was saying how 2015 and 16 were going to be great years for DreamWorks. But he doesn't mention those titles and honestly probably knows that with everyone going to see all those other movies, poor B.O.O. and, to an extent, Panda 3, are going to lose out.

With the sheer amount of films on offer, it's going to be a great year for fans, even if some of the films are going to be squashed under the weight of others. Pixar may fare well enough, but I think DWA and Blue Sky's Peanuts are going to feel the pressure from Uni's Minions and a host of other films playing for the same audiences...

[EricJ]

(Terminator and Jurassic are "sure to do well"? Nostalgic optimism springs eternal, doesn't it, or else we just don't read production credits? )

When I saw the title there I thought he was saying how 2015 and 16 were going to be great years for DreamWorks. But he doesn't mention those titles and honestly probably knows that with everyone going to see all those other movies, poor B.O.O. and, to an extent, Panda 3, are going to lose out.

And just off the subject, is it now some union regulation, or just public image, that most CGI movies in the last few years now air the disclaimer, after the end credits of every itemized production assistant who worked on it?:

The making and authorized distribution of this film supported over 12,000 jobs and involved over one-million work-hours.

(What, have we been reduced to treating DWA and third-party CGI movies as nuclear power plants?:
"But we need them, they bring local jobs to the economy!" )

[Ben]

No, read it properly. Jurassic is a given: essentially forgoing the events of Lost World and III and acting as a 20 years later follow-up to the original Park, the film is going to be huge.

Terminator was placed with the rest of the "sure to do well" titles...films that may not be as huge as Avengers, Star Wars and Jurassic (trust me, Jurassic is going to be big), but won't flop big time either. And, no, I'm not nostalgic for Terminator...unless they do some awesome de-aging stuff on Arnie, I'm not buying this "aging tissue" malarkey.

As for the disclaimers, CG films more than most use an army of people, many of which never get recognized. Slowly, their names have crept in as films are made by "in-house" units, and these companies choose to showcase their employees' names by way of a "thank-you" to those people who help make the movies and, as such, help make the company.

As an independent, DWA more than most expresses their thanks to their staff as a way to increase morale, although the other reason for including messages like that is to make a point against piracy. While I obviously understand the reasons this is all included nowadays, I do agree that they stretch out already long credits: we just ran Peabody And Sherman here and the end titles make up a full ten minutes of screentime (I also wonder if the speed of these are timed to drag out the running time of some films, since a higher number on the box suggests better value).

[Bill1978]

I hope they keep adding more names to credits, cause statistically my name will have to appear one day and then I can pretend I am 'famous' LOL

[Ben]

Now it's being reported that DWA will become a part of Hasbro...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/d ... bro-748679

Interesting...it seems more of a "fit" for obvious reasons, but the interesting part is that it looks like Hasbro has some live-action ambitions and DWA could then find itself becoming the "new" DreamWorks proper again, producing animation and family live-action.

Of course, then Hasbro itself starts to look for a very nice option for something like Disney to take over: not only this report mentions that the toy company's biggest sellers are Marvel merchandise, something that Disney has been rumored to want to bring in-house...

It looks like "DreamWorks (A Hasbro Company)" is safe again for now, but the emphasis will shift yet again onto projects that can become even more obvious products, or films based on toy lines that Hasbro already owns outright, like TransFormers, whose films are already made by...hey...the separate "adult" DreamWorks studio!

[Dacey]

Hasbro just made a huge deal with Disney, though, giving them access to all of the Princess characters that were previously Mattel's property. That's a multi-billion dollar franchise (even bigger now thanks to Frozen and Tangled), so it surprises me just a bit that DreamWorks might be becoming a part of Hasbro now (Who makes DreamWorks toys anyway?).

Essentially, this gives Hasbro the Princess line (and a lot of other Disney characters if I'm not mistaken), Star Wars, Marvel, and now DreamWorks, not to mention the fact that this could also mean DreamWorks producing animated TV shows based off of Hasbro holidays, as Ben already pointed out. DreamWorks Animation's G.I. Joe? It's certainly possible.

So...essentially I've pretty much repeated what Ben said. But if Disney does take over, then Vi may finally get her wish.

[ShyViolet]

Thanks for mentioning me Dacey! I was just about to post a "yay!!"LOL

[Dacey]

You'll always be the DreamWorks girl around here to me, Vi.

[EricJ]

Now it's being reported that DWA will become a part of Hasbro...
Interesting...it seems more of a "fit" for obvious reasons, but the interesting part is that it looks like Hasbro has some live-action ambitions and DWA could then find itself becoming the "new" DreamWorks proper again, producing animation and family live-action.

Basically, the biggest moneymaker for Dreamworks-proper right now is all the big opening-day BO records for Michael Bay's Transformers movies, cushioning the blow for the money lost by the Penguins and Turbo.
And even those last remaining live-action movies are just stubborn sequelized franchise relics dating back to the long-ago days when Dreamworks was the "Spielberg had a neat idea that morning" all-around studio (that hired the "Lion King Guy" to replace Balto and Don Bluth), that thought it would be a neat-idea to make one Transformers movie to see if it could be done.
...Looks like Shrek is no longer the "king" of the studio, and the last guy in line behind him inherited the crown.

(Then again, there's also Hasbro to consider:
They tried making all their other games part of the Transformers machine, starting, most obviously with "Battleship". And then when that sank their plans, they tried selling their Candyland and Ouija projects off at a fire sale--
And with those now not making anything happen, think they've gotten a taste of Marvel Universe fever, and setting out to start again, thinking that if you want a studio to do your movies right, you have to own the studio to do it.)