Flushed Away

Post by **Dacey** » October 7th, 2006, 3:15 pm

Everyone who breathes air knew about Cars. How many people knew about Over the Hedge?

"Over the Hedge" made over $150M in the US alone. And that was opening against stuff like "The Da Vinci Code". Plus, DreamWorks made at least three trailers for that thing. So people knew about it.

Look at all the pressure Disney was under to make Chicken Little "the hit that would save the company." That's what it's like for DW every time they release a film!

I didn't hear any of that stuff when "Shark Tale" came out. Same goes for "Madagascar".

Um, that has actually never been the case. Disney was not the first studio to make animated films, for one. Secondly, Disney has ALWAYS been in competition with other animation studios--for decades!
Remember that whole Disney/Warner Bros. thing during the 40s and 50s (Warner Bros eventually completely topping Disney in the Theatrical Shorts department) What about Fleischer's Popeye? Fleischer's Superman? United Pictures Association or UPA--they split off from Disney and made bold, progressive, challenging shorts in the 40s and 50s like Gerald McBoing Boing, The Brotherhood of Man, and later on Mr. Magoo (who everyone knows now) Yellow Submarine, not a Disney film. Bill Melendez and Peanuts. Ralph Bakshi during the 70s, a comparitively "dry" spell for Disney. The 1980s had tons of non-Disney animated films--Don Bluth had some success for a while and was hailed as the next Walt. Maybe he hit a rough spot, but he did sort of make a comeback. He also produced a well-known video game, Dragon's Lair.

Quick question: How many kids today have seen ANY of the stuff mentioned there beyond "Peanuts" and "Looney Tunes"?

Further more, I'm not saying that Disney ruled the world of animation (though the pretty much always have, and to a large degree, still do), I was saying that Disney and DreamWorks are pretty much the only studios who can sell an animated film on their name alone. They're trusted brand names. Many people see their logos and expect quality from them. From my understaning, no other studio has that claim (yet).

And I really doubt that Disney would distribute "Edgy" films like the first "Shrek" and "Antz". They might not even want to put their name on tamer fare like "Shark Tale".

So, again, I don't see Disney buying them. Ever.

And, I think I've made this post way too long!

Post by **Ben** » October 7th, 2006, 3:58 pm

Competition.

That's one very good reason that Disney would buy DreamWorks. Not that it might happen anytime soon, but there's much to be said in taking your biggest compeditor out of the picture.

Edgier fare? "Miramax presents Antz" for instance. "Shrek, from Touchstone Pictures"...

I also think that DWs WANTS to be a brand name, hence the logo that appears above all their films on the posters, but really they're selling themselves all the time on Shrek and whatever the last big grossing film they made was.

Flushed Away, for example, comes from the creators of Shrek and Madagascar, NOT Shrek and Wallace & Gromit, while Madagsacar came from the studio that brought you Shrek and Shark Tale.

If they took those credits off, DreamWorks as a name becomes as bland as all the rest. WE know the differences, but don't forget the average Joe thinks all animation is Disney anyhoo!

Post by **Dacey** » October 7th, 2006, 4:16 pm

I guess so.

Still, that would be a LOT of animated movies coming from one studio (if it ever did happen).

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 7th, 2006, 10:56 pm

"Over the Hedge" made over $150M in the US alone. And that was opening against stuff like "The Da Vinci Code". Plus, DreamWorks made at least three trailers for that thing. So people knew about it.

Go to your friends or people you know, ask them if they've seen Over the Hedge, heard of it, or know anyone who's seen it. Then ask them about Cars.

Plus, DreamWorks made at least three trailers for that thing. So people knew about it.

They also made an animated Baskin Robbins commercial for Sinbad (which was on TV all the time) and posted tons of character panels everywhere. NO ONE I knew had seen it. (and very few had even heard of it.)

I didn't hear any of that stuff when "Shark Tale" came out. Same goes for "Madagascar".

Trust me, it was there. Maybe not in exactly the same way, but it's there all the time. Not always on fan sites or blogs....often in newspaper articles, business magazines, etc....

SharkTale--right after DW went public, all these hopes were riding on it that it would be a giant hit, spawn sequels, etc...Right around this time, tons of articles: "Will DW be as big as Pixar? Will DW be as big as Pixar? Wall Street has its doubts, blah, blah, blah..." then after it opens and reviews are bad, even though BO is good "DW definetely not on the same level as Pixar, ST did well but not as good as people hoped, Madagascar better be a giant blockbuster or else, blah, blah, blah...." Madagascar does well with average reviews and respectable BO, but not steller. Then DW hits a bad patch, stock goes down, DW and Katzenberg built "unrealistic" expectations for Mad and Shrek 2 DVD sales--a lawsuit comes up. It's dropped eventually, but all the the time it's still:
"Over the Hedge better be good or else.....Over the Hedge better be good or else..."

Over the Hedge does well. Respectable reviews. Not a blockbuster though--it had to make at least 300 mill for that. Now in every news story about DW it's: "Flushed Away better be good, Flushed Away better be good, Shrek 3 better be as good as the first two...." Seeing a pattern here?

I mean, just look at this article by a Hollywood insider:

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/d ... animation/

Quick question: How many kids today have seen ANY of the stuff mentioned there beyond "Peanuts" and "Looney Tunes"?

So, what if they didn't? All I'm saying is that there's always been other animation. Animation that's remembered through the ages? That's a whole other game, and very few people really have the foresight to predict whether or not something will be remembered.

Edgier fare? "Miramax presents Antz" for instance. "Shrek, from Touchstone Pictures"...

Right, like Roger Rabbit from Touchstone.

Also, what about Nightmare Before Christmas? (Disney) The Black Cauldron? Hunchback of Notre Dame? Lion King and Pochontas? Those all had some pretty "edgy" things in them. Even Chicken Little and Emperor's New Groove did.

I also think that DWs WANTS to be a brand name

Exactly, which is why I think the Disney name is better to have than the Paramount name.

So, again, I don't see Disney buying them. Ever.

I dunno WJ, stranger things have happened. Like, oh, I don't know, that animation company everyone thought was going to go out on their own and kick Disney's a**.....being bought by Disney.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 7th, 2006, 11:39 pm

The only ones that remain copyrighted to their original owners are Universal's "Tail" and "Land/Time",

Technically doesn't Spielberg also have some say over what gets done with these properties, or didn't he at one point? (Like with Roger Rabbit)

(Fieval was his grandfather's name!

)

Post by **Ben** » October 8th, 2006, 8:48 am

Yes, Spielberg and Universal share copyright, though SS couldn't get it out in widecsreen could he?

I was just naming the controlling studio.

Post by **Josh** » October 9th, 2006, 2:37 pm

I was a little surprised to see Katzenberg's name in yesterday's Los Angeles Times article. He had some pretty nice things to say about Robert Iger:

Bob is very modest about his abilities and instincts — which in fact are very, very good. He is way less engaged in the trappings and public persona than he is in really providing leadership.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 9th, 2006, 4:19 pm

I think Bob and Jeffrey were actually friends for a long time. It was with Iger that Katzenberg had struck that DW television animation/ABC deal...which of course went south when Disney bought ABC. (1995)

At the time there was all this talk that the Katzenberg/Eisner feud would then end (ha!) because supposadly Eisner made some concilatory "gestures" towards JK (implying that they might work together again via the DW/ABC connection)....of course this eventually went south too.

Very ironic that it was Iger who pretty much got the #2 "president-COO" title that JK wanted so much....

Post by **Ben** » October 10th, 2006, 3:33 pm

Ditto as I said in another thread:

If DWs does go south, I think JK would rather end up under Bob Iger at Disney rather than have to end up running DWA under Paramount and essentially end up making Nickelodeon features.

He's making sure his bridge is at least completed on his side...

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 10th, 2006, 11:09 pm

He's making sure his bridge is at least completed on his side... Smile

YES!

This definetely raises my optimism.

Post by **Daniel** » October 11th, 2006, 1:10 am

ShyViolet wrote:
He's making sure his bridge is at least completed on his side... Smile
YES! This definetely raises my optimism.

Same goes for me as well

Post by **Dacey** » October 11th, 2006, 5:36 pm

So Vi, you're saying that if Disney had been marketing "Over the Hedge", more people would've seen it than "Cars"?

Don't forget that Disney gave "Cars" what was said to be their BIGGEST marketing campaign EVER. Also don't forget that "Over the Hedge" made more money at the box office than Disney's much promoted "Chicken Little". So, obviously, Disney may know a few marketing tricks, but DW does as well.

I mean, "Shrek 2" had a $100M+ opening weekend. No other animated movie has that claim. It seems obvious to me that DreamWorks knows how to sell a film.

Plus, Paramount is already placing their own logo in "Flushed Away" TV spots. If anyone's going to buy DWA, it would most likely be them Or maybe Universal, since they could use a good animation studio working for them. And didn't they already help distribute DreamWorks films in the past?

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 11th, 2006, 6:01 pm

So Vi, you're saying that if Disney had been marketing "Over the Hedge", more people would've seen it than "Cars"?

Well, not at the same time of course.

But if Disney was marketing OTH instead of Cars, OTH would have done a lot better than it did--not saying it would have made more or less than Cars. It just would have done A LOT better than the #s it did get.

Also don't forget that "Over the Hedge" made more money at the box office than Disney's much promoted "Chicken Little". S

Yeah, but....what about in merchindise and overseas?
Maybe OTH did do better than Chicken, but you do have to admit:

Regardless of the #s, way more people know about Chicken Little than OTH. Do the same experiment with those two films and you'll see what I mean.

Don't forget that Disney gave "Cars" what was said to be their BIGGEST marketing campaign EVER.

So? Couldn't they do that for OTH as well? After all OTH has....cuddly characters for cryin' out loud!

I mean, "Shrek 2" had a $100M+ opening weekend. No other animated movie has that claim.

Like Ben said, it was making money hugely on the success of the first Shrek film (as in people knowing about it and getting excited about it.)
Of course its own merits as well, but very few people said: "Oh, I can't wait to see Shrek 2, 'cause I love DW and I"ll see anything they do, they are so cool! (LIke they would for Pixar) It was more like: "Oh, I loved the first Shrek, I am so seeing Shrek 2."
It wasn't the DW name at all. And yeah, they had a great campaign, but they had a very good one for Madagascar and SharkTale as well. (At least I thought so.) Those films did well but were not the monster hit Shrek 2 was. (no pun intended! -

) Shrek is a totally unique situation.

So, obviously, Disney may know a few marketing tricks, but DW does as well.

DW does extremely well for being an independent and young non-Disney animation studio. If nothing else, they should get credit for this. But the Disney name, and their sheer power over the market--there's no comparison WJ. Marketing-wise, unless they're intentionally burying a film, Disney is the best distributor any film company could possibly ask for.

Plus, Paramount is already placing their own logo in "Flushed Away" TV spots. If anyone's going to buy DWA, it would most likely be them Or maybe Universal, since they could use a good animation studio working for them.

Oh G-d....please don't say this! (J/K

) I don't want DW's quality to be watered down by some bland studio, even if they do let JK stay in charge.
The bottom line is: it doesn't matter if Paramount or Universal puts their logo on FA or any other DW film. If it's not Disney, the publilc won't know or care. The general public really only recognizes 2 filmmakers: Walt Disney and Steven Spielberg. If it doesn't have one of those two names on it, they're not interested.

Plus, if Universal really wanted DW Animation, they would have lso,done something a long time ago, like, oh I don't know, way back when they were buying DW SKG proper!

Trust me, DW best chance, based on monotary and creative reasons, is to join Disney. I know you're concerend about Pixar's power (frankly so am I) but if this did happen, I think it would be kind of a "You do your thing, we'll do ours" between them and Pixar, now Pixar-Disney.

Whew! This topic is so complex and exhausting!

Post by **Ben** » October 11th, 2006, 6:04 pm

If DWA goes to anyone it will be Paramount. They broke off the Universal distribution deal when the main company was sold to Paramount, who now handles distribution for DWA, hence their logo insertion.

That's what I meant by JK ending up as a Nick producer. They're already talking about making CG series for Nick...films will follow.

Instead of Paramount buying in outisde animation films, we will eventually see DWA essentially working as their in-house studio, creating such things as Barnyard and Charlotte's Web with the Nick/DWs branding.

It's at that point that I believe JK will jump, and saying nice things about Iger may mean he lands in a nice place.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 11th, 2006, 6:21 pm

I'd rather he jump now....guess there's still too much tension though.

JK at Nick......that's just.....so wrong!

I'm sure he'll make something worthwhile there...I hope....but I really don't think that's the kind of thing he had in mind when he first formed DW.

Here's a pretty old article postulating on a possible Disney aquisition of DW:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... _mz011.htm

Despite Katzenberg's courtroom battles with Eisner over his compensation, a deal with DreamWorks might not be as unlikely as it seems. As president of ABC prior to its 1996 acquisition by Disney, Iger bought a 1% stake in the upstart DreamWorks studio and ordered two TV shows for the network. When Iger married TV reporter Willow Bay in 1995, Katzenberg was front and center. "They have a good relationship," says a friend of both. The deal could be structured as a stand-alone unit, similar to Disney's 1993 arrangement with Miramax, which was negotiated by Katzenberg. But it would still face hurdles, including a hefty price tag and DreamWorks' existing distribution deal with NBC Universal. Neither Disney nor DreamWorks would comment.