Will Disney buy DWA? No! Universal did!

[Dacey]

Just wanna be clear and say that I'm not rooting for DWA to fail/close/die, but to say it's premature to speculate about it is naive. And to suggest it's immature actually dampens one of the best, most stimulating conversations we've had on these boards in ages!

Time for me to be clear. Was not intending to target Ben's or James' comments here. Just the "glee" I've seen around the internet in general, but was not in any way trying to call what you guys were saying immature. If that's what got across there (I did say "around the internet"), I do apologize for not being more clear there.

[EricJ]

Sorry, I just don't agree with this. Some cartoons back in the day were definitely mean-spirited but when exactly did DWA have "generally nasty characters"? And when did they show "combative gags" and "punishment"?

What made me think of the Freleng-Katzenberg analogy in the first place was another toon expert's observation about Freleng doing the Speedy Gonzales and Road Runner series in the 60's:
Ask any cartoon fan about the Road Runners, they'd say the hero of Jones's cartoons was poor Wile E. Coyote, and his Buster Keaton-like chase of the impossible. When Freleng did the series, all of a sudden, the Road Runner was the implied hero, and we were to laugh at the "mean ol' coyote" getting what he "deserved". (And just look at how Tweety and Speedy's emphases changed from Clampett and McKimson's first cartoons...)

It's that vibe I get from DWA films: It doesn't seem to know how to create sympathy for a particularly odd character (at least not without backhanding a little sitcom ridicule at their expense), it just knows what bad people are picking on the good people, and how to make the bad people obnoxious enough to "deserve" to lose in the end.
Even Penguins of Madagascar, in its opening scenes, opens with a ridiculously condescending narrator obnoxiously parodying "March of the Penguins"....why? We never see this character onscreen or again; it's simply a Seinfeld-esque cheap shot at an easy target, whose very presence the filmmakers assume we'll laugh at if it's ridiculed, and implies that our heroes are being "picked on" by the mean old status-quo.
There doesn't seem to be any other form of character motivation in DWA films, whereas Pixar films always seem to be about the one reason the main character has for pursuing his goal. You can't Work Dreams if you happen to be too personally short-sighted to have any.

DreamWorks is having the same problems Disney had a few years ago, but unfortunately there doesn't appear to be the same white knight out there to save them.

Exactly: Disney had talented people from the 90's Renaissance working for them, but had Eisner as their "enemy", who wanted to thwart 2D and fairytales, and it was only after replacing the head that the talent was allowed to be more creative.
The problem is that DWA is its own worst enemy, and has no one to "fight" short of committing harikiri--The company has shaped itself in the image of its founder, whose bullies-and-the-bullied view of the universe wouldn't know a "sweet" film if it gave him a bunch of flowers and a kitten, and who has shaped the entire strategy of the company around waiting for the new long-lost heir-to-the-throne of a movie that went out of style twelve years ago to come riding to their rescue with six more sequels in its bag.

Disney knew it was in trouble and tried to get its identity back; DWA is struggling to keep its identity on life support, and saying "Why isn't it working??"...There's a difference. Only one of the two could actually see the light at the end of the tunnel. There's no "SaveDreamworks.com" movement on the part of the animators to oust JK from the head, and if there is, it's more awareness of their company than I'll give them.
It's not "immature" to call for the vaudeville hook, and say "Marvin K. Katzenberg, Will You Please Go Now?"--If you want "immature", just sit through Shrek 1 trying to attack Eisner with Small World jokes because they thought someone was picking on them. What we're waiting for is the victory of Maturity, and seeing what artistically flowers from there.
I'll agree, however, it may be "naive" to think that it's going to happen within the next three films, any more than thinking you can kill a cockroach on the first swat. Although, okay, maybe a little immature to make side bets on how much "Home" is going to lose on opening weekend...

[Ben]

S'ok, Dace!

The real problem is that DWA have moved away from their "earlier, funnier films" and toward a more narrow reliance on franchises...all to please the bottom liners. It's no surprise that this started as soon as the company went public, the second most silly thing they did (the first being cutting their ties with Paramount).

"Greed leads to suffering", to paraphrase a certain wise alien.

[ShyViolet]

Wow so sad:


http://variety.com/2015/film/news/atlan ... 201442734/

[Ben]

So, selling their campus to make $185m, then leasing back for twenty years at $13.2m per year...that's $264m before they even start to add the 1.5% per year increase on for each successive year! By the end of their term they'll be paying close to $20m a year, the same as flushing over $400m away on one bad film.

Now, sure, a couple of Shrek-sized blockbusters could cancel this out but it seems to me to be a lot of gambling and a short term fix that could cause long term problems, which suggests that the company really is in some tight financial pressure. The figures just don't add up!

[EricJ]

By the end of their term they'll be paying close to $20m a year, the same as flushing over $400m away on one bad film.

(So to speak.)

[LotsoA113]

One thing I'm still shocked about is that they just outright cancelled B.O.O. Considering it was just six months to it's release when they canned it, they had to have a good chunk of it animated by now; one would think they'd just delay it to October (the presence of ghosts in the movie could have made it timely for Halloween) and try to recoup what they've put into the production. Bizarre they just dumped the film.

[Ben]

Have they "just dumped" it, though? My understanding is that it's been taken off the release schedule, not canceled completely. Once it gets retooled, I would expect it to reappear at somepoint, unless early screenings were deemed SO bad they were willing to lose at least $50-60m rather than finish the film. But with contracts in place and other factors in play, I would have thought they have an obligation to release the film somehow, maybe as a DTV or a repurposed TV special?

[Jpcase]

We can all dream, and it's a beautiful fantasy, but I can't see DWA becoming a beacon of hand-drawn animation any time soon...if their films aren't a success now they would just be non-successful films that were hand-drawn, a double nail in the coffin.

Couldn't they produce quality, hand-drawn animated films for a fraction of what they're spending now though? I don't have enough financial sense to make a firm comparison of budgets between two different countries, but The Secret of Kells was made for the equivalent of roughly $7 million and it has beautiful animation. Song of the Sea probably didn't cost much more. Sure, neither of those films did much business, but their stories weren't exactly tailored for mass appeal. I really do think that a hand-drawn film could do well at the box-office - Princess and the Frog might have underwhelmed, but one film does not a good case study make. Besides, if that film had been done on a budget of say, $50 million (still quite a bit more than Cartoon Saloon has needed to make their films), then its gross might have been seen in a better light.

I feel like if DreamWorks would do a couple of hand-drawn animated films on the cheap, they could recuperate costs pretty easily, and might even have a hit on their hands. That said, I feel like our only realistic hope for a return to hand-drawn animation right now is through Disney's recent developments on films like Feast and Moana. If Musker and Clements are able to craft a successful feature that looks hand-drawn, then it might convince higher-ups that audiences are ready for a return to the real thing.

[EricJ]

Instead, Dreamworks, and their many specific imitators, have helped do their part in the cause of hand-drawn animation, by putting the public firmly in the belief that if they never see another CGI film for the rest of their lives, it'll be ten billion years too soon.

[Ben]

Seriously...could you explain that?

[EricJ]

Yes: Dreamworks (with a little help from Blue Sky and Sony) have become the reason the public CAN'T STAND non-Pixar/WDFA CGI films, and would, conceivably, welcome hand-drawn back with open arms, just to break up the corny monotony.
This, ironically, from the guy who claimed "2-D is dead!", and spent the next twelve years driving CGI comedies into the grave.

[Dacey]

That would explain this

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id ... bleme2.htm

And this

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=lorax.htm

And this

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=croods.htm

Also, no Blue Sky film has grossed less than $100 million

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises ... tudios.htm

Annnnd this ain't too shabby either

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id ... ragon2.htm

[Ben]

I still don't think "the public" don't know the difference between ANY of the studios' output. To most everyone, it's the "new Disney" out when a new film hits. Pixar is the only one who even seems to have made something of a minor dent in the consciousness of who makes these things.

[ShyViolet]

Katzenberg's plan:


http://variety.com/2015/film/news/jeffr ... 201445520/