I loved the part where Alex danced and the penguin part "looks impressive, but will it fly" haha.
Still have some doubts, but it's looking good.
Madagascar
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: October 7th, 2007
- Location: Unknown
Madagascar is as popular as Shrek?.
Last edited by Once Upon A Dream on October 4th, 2008, 5:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
[img]http://i43.tinypic.com/bfqbtk.jpg[/img]
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: October 7th, 2007
- Location: Unknown
No,I was just talking about your dumb and insulting commentsMeg wrote:I could say the same to you.
.
Last edited by Once Upon A Dream on October 5th, 2008, 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[img]http://i43.tinypic.com/bfqbtk.jpg[/img]
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
Actually, Katz announced M2 with greenlit fanfare as "the new DW franchise", back when he'd first gotten that "scare" about not enough people buying Shrek 2 on disk, and thought he had to quickly shift all of DW's eggs to another basket.Neal wrote:I have a big issue with DreamWork's policy of 'every film needs a sequel'. I mean...plans for up to, what was it, six installments of Shrek? And just weeks after Kung Fu Panda hit theaters they began talking about up to five installments? I'm not anti-sequel, but if we began to get Cinderella 5 or The Lion King 1/2 and whatnot... I'd definitely be against it. And on occasion, hasn't Katzenberger announced a number of sequels he plans to release and then upped that number? Maybe I'm stupid but it sounds as if they're trying to milk cows that sometimes aren't even born yet!
Of course, nowadays, looking for something else to Save the Company Name, we're more likely to get "Kung Fu Panda" rammed down our throats, while the Penguins are quietly ushered out the back door...
Thus demonstrating the problem with CGI movies taking three years to film, and the perils of saying anything generous around DW, The Little Animation Studio That Burped At the Table.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
The main "problem" is that DWA is a fragile company, still young and still needing to pay a lot of people out from their releases, hence all the partnering and promotion that DWA puts into their releases. A major content provider actually can't just survive on two features a year: they <I>need</I> each one to succeed and make their money back at the very least, hence the cutting of from the Aardman deal and the lack of follow-ups to anything that made less than a certain sum.
I'm not sure what the figured were like on Bee Movie, but it's no secret that it was intended to be the first of at least a few projects with Seinfeld, DWA's "new comedy partner", but I guess they're waiting on final DVD and eventual Blu-ray sales to see if they're going to chase up that relationship.
Essentially, when something sticks, they need to go for another one as they're pretty much guaranteed money makers, meaning DWA gets another film out in theaters, and has a guaranteed hit, while the other movie can be a bit more adventurous. This is also why, at the end of the day, all their projected movies are "commercially viable" propositions...there's nothing truly risk-taking in the bunch, factoring in the saleability of these things.
Which is why it's great that, on the artistic side of things, the animators keep pushing the boundaries, because with that aspect, DWA would be in the position that it's in. JK, Spielberg or no...if the films don't make the money they need to, DWA would be closed down. As an independent, putting their films out through Paramount for which they pat them a percentage fee, they just don't have the studio safety blanket enjoyed by Disney (and Pixar) and Blue Sky.
"arrogant mockery" - I nearly made a mess of myself laughing at that. What a fantastic phrase. Someone should start a band with that name or, better yet, change it to "arrogant monkey", which is what I keep reading it as.
More seriously, play nice. Though Once's comments are sometimes hard to make out - and often don't reflect what's been said in a thread already - it's not fair to pick on that. And in that case, it was quite clear what Once was getting at, and thanks to Mac for providing the right answer!
I'm not sure what the figured were like on Bee Movie, but it's no secret that it was intended to be the first of at least a few projects with Seinfeld, DWA's "new comedy partner", but I guess they're waiting on final DVD and eventual Blu-ray sales to see if they're going to chase up that relationship.
Essentially, when something sticks, they need to go for another one as they're pretty much guaranteed money makers, meaning DWA gets another film out in theaters, and has a guaranteed hit, while the other movie can be a bit more adventurous. This is also why, at the end of the day, all their projected movies are "commercially viable" propositions...there's nothing truly risk-taking in the bunch, factoring in the saleability of these things.
Which is why it's great that, on the artistic side of things, the animators keep pushing the boundaries, because with that aspect, DWA would be in the position that it's in. JK, Spielberg or no...if the films don't make the money they need to, DWA would be closed down. As an independent, putting their films out through Paramount for which they pat them a percentage fee, they just don't have the studio safety blanket enjoyed by Disney (and Pixar) and Blue Sky.
"arrogant mockery" - I nearly made a mess of myself laughing at that. What a fantastic phrase. Someone should start a band with that name or, better yet, change it to "arrogant monkey", which is what I keep reading it as.
More seriously, play nice. Though Once's comments are sometimes hard to make out - and often don't reflect what's been said in a thread already - it's not fair to pick on that. And in that case, it was quite clear what Once was getting at, and thanks to Mac for providing the right answer!
