Will Disney buy DWA? No! Universal did!

[EricJ]

What's more, Orlando has been hinting that Will is going to have more than a cameo with his story focused on his relationship with his son. Hmmm...

Yes, from the sound of rumors, it sounds like they think they have to do an Apology-Sequel to P4:Stranger Tides--"The audience didn't like it because it had new characters! They wanted Will and Elizabeth back!"
So, they come up with a way of taking the finale out of World's End, with a plot excuse not to make Will the center of the story: "It's going to be about how Elizabeth becomes the new Pirate Queen, and never has to wear a corset again! "

Even though the whole preoccupied distraction onto Will's story was one (one) of the reasons World's End was such a train wreck, which caused NA audiences not to want to go back to #4.

[Ben]

But everyone did...?

[ShyViolet]

Interesting:

http://deadline.com/2016/03/dreamworks- ... 201712171/

[EricJ]

But everyone did...?

On your continent, maybe.

“I could imagine that with a good financial partner coming with us, putting together the assets of Paramount of DreamWorks could be extremely valuable,” he told attendees at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference.

So...are we discussing what Katzenberg can imagine about his company? Do we really want to go with that drive-through opening, or just let everyone write their own punchlines from there?

[Dan]

Perhaps further discussion of Pirates can be moved over to the Pirates thread?

As for Katzenberg's comments, seems to me that he's still seeking top dollar for the company, even for a merger.

[Ben]

He always will, Dan. It's something of a principles issue for him, and a matter of pride. And I've been saying since day one that Paramount and DWA should have remained in business together long-term because it would have been security for DWA and a solid line of animation franchises for the Mountain, especially since that whole Paramount Animation thing turned so out well, didn't it?

Said it before and I'll say it again: those two belong to each other and worked well. DWA doesn't have a permanent releasing studio, and Paramount doesn't have a regularly producing animation house, the only one of the majors not to do so. It would be pretty cool to see them get tied up again, in whatever way, shape or form.

[James]

...Said it before and I'll say it again: those two belong to each other and worked well. DWA doesn't have a permanent releasing studio, and Paramount doesn't have a regularly producing animation house, the only one of the majors not to do so. It would be pretty cool to see them get tied up again, in whatever way, shape or form.

QFT!

[Ben]

Quality Family Time...?

[EricJ]

Said it before and I'll say it again: those two belong to each other and worked well. DWA doesn't have a permanent releasing studio, and Paramount doesn't have a regularly producing animation house, the only one of the majors not to do so. It would be pretty cool to see them get tied up again, in whatever way, shape or form.

And besides, if Paramount DOESN'T get a corporate studio icon, animated or not, they'll ram the Transformers, Ninja Turtles and Hasbro Productions down our throats until Michael Bay's in the retirement home.

If a studio has at least one kids/animated icon and one action icon, they're just as happy and contented as every other Warner and Disney competitor. And with Universal now the house that the Minions built, the other studios are too wrapped up in their own icons (see Sony bringing back the Surf's Up movies, after Hotel Transylvania 2 bombed) to want to subsidize Jeffrey's rogue white-elephant.

[Dacey]

(see Sony bringing back the Surf's Up movies, after Hotel Transylvania 2 bombed)

If by "bomb" you mean "Sony Pictures Animation's biggest movie of all time, which out-grossed the original and made enough money to get Hotel 3 greenlit for Halloween 2018," then sure, it "bombed."

[ShyViolet]

Really liked the JK story on the front page! Thanks for posting, Ben.

[Ben]

Cool, no worries! Saw it in yesterday's print edition of the paper and thought I would link once it became available online. Nice to see him tip the hat to Walt, even if I do still find the "adult in every child" line too cynical!

[ShyViolet]

Yeah, it's sort of become meaningless for me too..."the child in every adult" is a beautiful concept but..."the adult in every child?" What does that even mean?

I mean the worst thing is that instead of the truly mature, deeper films like POE and Antz, the general consensus for quite a few DWA films is that they're cute enough for the little ones (Home, Madagascar) but not involving enough for adults to be truly invested in. That sort of seems the opposite of what "the adult in every child" was originally supposed to mean...or at least what DreamWorks claimed it meant.

Don't get me wrong, DWA still does make the occasional great film like Panda or Dragons (even if they are sequels now) but "the adult in every child" should really mean more than the occasional scatalogical joke and/or pop culture ref. (That's one of the reasons I loved Guardians so much...it finally felt like that something "more"--because it reflected the original "child in every adult" feeling that Walt thought of. At least to me.)

[EricJ]

Yeah, it's sort of become meaningless for me too..."the child in every adult" is a beautiful concept but..."the adult in every child?" What does that even mean?

Well, remember, this is the guy who overdosed on critics grabbing onto his Shrek anti-Disney/Eisner act, and hailing "Humor adults can enjoy with their kids!"
Back when that meant Seinfeld-sitcom humor, and not "Inside Out".

The current Lassiter-Era WDFA/Pixar is appealing to "the adult in every child", but for Jeff to think that adults have to be "kids" to appreciate a CGI unless deliberately crafted otherwise proves he....still doesn't quite get it after fifteen years.

[Ben]

While I think JK's meaning to be that they make "smart" films, in terms of the orgInally deeper POE and Spirit (long since jettisoned) and the knowing or streetwise humor of the later CG comedies, the "adult in every child" line always felt ugly to me, as if they were almost urging kids to grow up faster. I think kids get enough of that from many other facets in the media...they don't need that message from their animated films!

Ironically, the DWA films have gotten more juvenile as they've progressed, so to reuse that line again now feels even more out of step with DWA's current model. Obviously JK wanted a soundbite friendly line that subverted Walt's (and made DWA seem more "grown up"?). But, really, what's the rush in growing up? I prefer Disney's aim to hold on to the child inside rather than have to start to try and lose that even quicker than kids do today.

I'm a big kid and proud of it. And there are a lot of smart kids out there too.