The big studios vs. the smalls

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 459
Joined: May 24th, 2021

The big studios vs. the smalls

Post by GeffreyDrogon » June 25th, 2021, 9:45 pm

Why is it so hard for mini-major distributors and small-studio animated films to be successful? This may sound strange, but with so many creative minds and clever think tanks out there, shouldn't there be a small studio that could at least challenge Pixar, WDAS, DreamWorks Animation, SPA, and Illumination? As what I said about Crest Animation, wouldn't a $20 million average budget be sufficient for success, even though that company somehow closed down? If Lionsgate had so much success with The Hunger Games and John Wick, couldn't they try harder to break out into animation, maybe with something for older audiences? That's one reason I think Lionsgate's whole amusement park plan is probably going to flop, simply because children love animation, and THG and JW aren't family friendly enough to warrant an amusement park.

Honestly, the current situation with Indian animation is quite pathetic, especially in regards to how much of a brain drain there is. Honestly, why does the situation feel so hopeless for these studios that they think mediocre films like Alpha and Omega, My Little Pony: The Movie, and Playmobil are going to change animation when they just come and go with little word of mouth?

I feel sorry for those animators who got duped by men like A. K. Madhavan and Byron Allen and have their creative ambitions ruined by collectivism. I like animation, but I hope that things get better for small studios. I also hope that things get better, with people realizing that good writing and creativity matter. I could only imagine what movies like Alpha and Omega could be like if written and made by competent, clever people.

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 6634
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: The big studios vs. the smalls

Post by Dacey » June 25th, 2021, 11:20 pm

Well...

Regarding Hunger Games, that was based off of a massively popular book series. Lionsgate was inevitably going to make a fortune off of that. John Wick was a low budget actioner which ended up becoming a sleeper hit, and like Kick-Ass, it was hugely successful in terms of disc sales, which is why each installment ends up making more money than the last. In other words, it became a franchise organically.

But Lionsgate is also largely an "adult" studio--before Twilight and Hunger Games, they were best known for Saw and, to a lesser extent, Tyler Perry. They also haven't produced the animated movies they release themselves. They're only distributors.

In the case of My Little Pony, they had the ingredients for a potential hit if they had simply marketed the darn thing, as for whatever reason they didn't think they needed to begin TV advertising until less than two weeks before the film came out. They also, again for whatever reason, held it from critics, which made no sense since they had an above average TV show movie with some great animation and songs. They underestimated their own release, which always hurts your film in the long run. Had Paramount handled the film (and, go figure, after Pony faltered at the box office Hasbro signed a deal with them for future releases), it almost certainly would've done better.

Ultimately, as I think Ben or someone else has said in the past, Lionsgate seems more concerned with being able to say "as seen in theaters" on the DVD cover than they are with the movie's actual theatrical receipts. It's the only reason we got so many Alpha and Omega and Norm installments. With Disney now going all out with their sequels and sending them to theaters instead of straight-to-DVD, the market is much more open for such things.

As for why Disney and Pixar and DreamWorks are bigger...well, they're bigger because they're bigger. :wink: No one knows how to market as well as Disney does, period, and Universal now owns DreamWorks, so they can promote their movies on all of their cable channels. I think Laika is the only "smaller studio" we can say has found success lately, but even they are distributed by Universal (well, except for Missing Link, which was mishandled by MGM which is now owned by Amazon), and apart from the extremely leggy Coraline, none of them have found financial success in the states.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25294
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: The big studios vs. the smalls

Post by Ben » June 26th, 2021, 5:12 am

GeffreyDrogon wrote:
June 25th, 2021, 9:45 pm
Honestly, why does the situation feel so hopeless for these studios that they think mediocre films like Alpha and Omega, My Little Pony: The Movie, and Playmobil are going to change animation when they just come and go with little word of mouth?
Animation, in these instances, is sadly not about making good movies. It’s about money. Period.

And Lionsgate, really, doesn’t care. They want a cheap, $20m film they can dump out on disc and rake back in $50m+ (maybe as much as $100m) in disc sales. That’s it. They give these things a theatrical release, because it makes them "legitimate" movies and therefore more valuable when they go into TV packages. Going theatrical also helps them secure voice talent, etc. It’s all about the deals.

This is a factory to them, where the product is more important than the people. And animators and artists have to eat, so they take the job of making these films. All filmmaking is, ultimately, a business — and hopefully sometimes some talented people can find some creativity, healthy challenges and enjoyment in their roles — but on this level no-one is really under any illusion that they are making the next Snow White or even Toy Story. It’s 75 minutes to end up on a disc, and then move on to the next one.

Like the now infamous Weinstein Company before them, and as Dacey says, all Lionsgate does is pick up or finance these things for distribution. They don’t make them and have little creative input, other than "we want another A&O for the fall", or somesuch. Weinstein was infamous for picking up Euro animation, or independent US films, and attempting to sell them better than Lionsgate, but without the might of a big studio behind it, or really the knowledge of animated product (Harvey and Bob's on-off relationship with animation goes way back, but they never had a clue).

Sadly none of these entities is interested in anything other than churning out "product". This is even true of the big studios, but they are better at what they do because they have bigger budgets and not always necessarily *better* talents, but certainly more developed talents that have more resources to do what they do, and the big studios are much more deft at "hiding" the fact that it is, also, all about the moolah to them as well, hence why we are getting more sequels nowadays.

Both sides will only make sequels until they stop making money. You can believe all you like that those films are all about "spending more time with characters we love", but really it’s "the first film's financial success surprised us, so of course we're going back to that well"…until it dries up. Even if story threads are left open (look at Amazing Spider-Man 2, any last season of a series that got cancelled before a final wrap up), they won’t bother making a movie to complete a story arc. If it won’t make money, it won’t get made.

This is most precisely exampled in the microcosm of independent animation production. There s always the dream that a small company will get noticed, as with Pixar and Disney, or Blue Sky and Fox, which is why there are so many startups. But the reality is that they will get sidelined into making a franchise series for very little money, and that it won’t get noticed by the general public or industry figures that might see some emerging talent.

And then these talents and their films have to be *sold* to an unknowing audience, and without the brand recognition or big bucks marketing that Disney, Universal, Warners, Sony et al have, then they will never break through that clutter. Hence why they get shoved onto discs and get prominent promotion on home video, where Moms see them in a store and think "that'll do" to keep the kids quiet for an hour or two. And so the merry-go-round turns and turns and turns.

It’s not pretty, but it’s the way it works right now. Maybe there’s a bright spot in streaming, where smaller studios can make a short or a pitch reel, and try and make an impact with a feature. Certainly Netflix have gotten behind the likes of Klaus and Over The Moon — and pushed them even to Oscar nights — but their animation offerings are also inconsistent, being a mix of low-level uninspired (visually and creatively) shows and specials, and theatrical-level features. Even here, the lack of home video releases keeps them stuck in that ghetto, with even big names like Glen Keane's film failing to break through — how many people have heard of, or seen, Over The Moon as compared to Raya? And that brings us back again to marketing, and the still important visibility of a home video release.

Which is, ultimately again…all about the money.

I think this is just about where I came in…! ;)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 5192
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: The big studios vs. the smalls

Post by EricJ » June 26th, 2021, 3:17 pm

Ben wrote:
June 26th, 2021, 5:12 am
And Lionsgate, really, doesn’t care. They want a cheap, $20m film they can dump out on disc and rake back in $50m+ (maybe as much as $100m) in disc sales. That’s it. They give these things a theatrical release, because it makes them "legitimate" movies and therefore more valuable when they go into TV packages. Going theatrical also helps them secure voice talent, etc. It’s all about the deals.
Lionsgate wants a franchise, ANY franchise, to call their own, now that Hunger Games is over, and their own boardroom hunger games know no shame--It wasn't necessarily the audience who requested two Now You See Me movies and two Hitman's Bodyguard movies.
And if you're a studio looking for House IP...you keep a pet animation studio. Them's the rules, set down by Fox and Universal.

(If anyone's seen documentaries about the failing Dubai theme park, where Sony, DWA Animation AND Lionsgate tried to see whether they could take on Disney for theme-park attractions, it's a good illustration of Lionsgate Franchise Desperation at work.
For some reason the Hunger Games land, with its Capitol Bullet Train and Panem 4D Aerial Tour just doesn't seem to be a draw for me... :? )

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 6634
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: The big studios vs. the smalls

Post by Dacey » June 26th, 2021, 3:45 pm

Lionsgate already has a franchise to call their own. It’s called John Wick.

I dare say their goal wasn’t ever to make Norm of the North the new face of the company.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 7261
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Re: The big studios vs. the smalls

Post by Randall » June 26th, 2021, 4:15 pm

Okay, seeing that Dubai theme park was pretty cool. I had no idea!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 5192
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: The big studios vs. the smalls

Post by EricJ » June 26th, 2021, 4:43 pm

Dacey wrote:
June 26th, 2021, 3:45 pm
Lionsgate already has a franchise to call their own. It’s called John Wick.
Oh, that's right, they own Summit now, don't they, who doesn't have to worry about their own "next Twilight"?
Randall wrote:
June 26th, 2021, 4:15 pm
Okay, seeing that Dubai theme park was pretty cool. I had no idea!
There's a YouTube video on the history, for those who want a look--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wKB3Gknl5A
Although the current website doesn't seem to have the Now You See Me Escape coaster listed on the attractions, and Sony's Green Hornet wild-mouse coaster seems to be closed for the pandemic...

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 459
Joined: May 24th, 2021

Re: The big studios vs. the smalls

Post by GeffreyDrogon » June 26th, 2021, 6:26 pm

Lionsgate could've put effort into making a great animated movie that would do great business in theaters, look at the situation Universal was in before and after Despicable Me.

Post Reply