Will Disney buy DWA? No! Universal did!

[ShyViolet]

Pretty cool JK profile, although only a very brief mention of the buyout failures.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/ar ... 1417277749

Also a piece on the future of movies:

http://m.wsj.com/articles/dreamworks-ka ... 0?mobile=y

[EricJ]

Also a piece on the future of movies:
http://m.wsj.com/articles/dreamworks-ka ... 0?mobile=y

Think that was from the beginning of the month, but darn--
I should have had money bet down that Alibi Jeff would blame Dreamworks' theatrical troubles on "Moviegoing is dead!", but he only came that close to saying it.

[Ben]

I'm not sure how much the TV shows can be blamed, though. The Penguins of Madagascar was airing for a while (and was quite popular) when Mad 3 came out, and that ended up being the biggest of the trilogy.

But the TV show doesn't have the other characters in it, does it? That's the point - the Madagascar movies offer more than the TV show can, but this new movie offers nothing that the TV show doesn't.

I should have had money bet down that Alibi Jeff would blame Dreamworks' theatrical troubles on "Moviegoing is dead!"

Right...moviegoing is not dead...the art of decent filmmaking is dead. But if you give the audience what they want (and, from everything we've seen, the sequels, remakes and franchise films for next year look to be better made than most) then they'll come out in force (haha), be it for nostalgic reasons or just because there's a fun movie night to be had.

This is why next year is shaping up to be one of the biggest ever years at the box-office, and JK knows it. It doesn't take a genius to see what with the amount of highly anticipated movies on offer that 2015 and 2016 will be banner years for big grossing movies...but haven't we discussed this already? It seems either either JK is repeating himself, this is old reporting, or Vi has posted a link to an older article, but I know we've already heard this from him.

Nothing JK has said in recent years has worked out...3D? Half the theaters don't even bother offering it anymore, and home 3D is dead, dead, dead. The only reason Europe continues with releasing 3D discs is because the market hasn't reached a low-point yet and because it's cheaper to bung the disc in the pack now rather than release a second edition down the line (which was Disney's strategy until they realized no-one was double dipping, especially just for a 3D disc).

As for his use of short content, I still don't know why DWA has not made their gorgeously charming and super-cute short film, First Flight (the only proper short that I know of, from the early 2000s), available on the front of a feature movie or as an extra on a disc.

Actually, scratch that...a YouTube search (of course) brings this up:

[ShyViolet]

Oops...yeah that wsj piece was from November 2nd.

[EricJ]

Nothing JK has said in recent years has worked out...3D? Half the theaters don't even bother offering it anymore, and home 3D is dead, dead, dead. The only reason Europe continues with releasing 3D discs is because the market hasn't reached a low-point yet and because it's cheaper to bung the disc in the pack now rather than release a second edition down the line (which was Disney's strategy until they realized no-one was double dipping, especially just for a 3D disc).

We're just NEVER going to be able to let that Oz thing go, are we?
It was a transitional period, and Disney was trying to figure out why 5-disk combos were getting such heat from the fans (among other things, they finally learned how to retire the Digital Copy disk, and we got Disney Movies Anywhere out of it). The fans seemed to be obsessed with the idea that they were, quote, "forced" to buy both editions ("But I NEED the extras!") as part of an evil, greedy marketing ploy, and blamed the studio for it.
Disney right now seems to be the only studio not offering their 3D's on hard-disk--on disk, that is, since all their titles are perfectly available on digital streaming--and after all the Oz tantrums, you don't have to waste time looking for theories why.
FWIW, the Marvels were allowed to determine their own disk packaging, and on the Cap, Thor and Guardian disks, Disney learned the lesson they were supposed to, that bunging 2 Blu-ray disks was all the fans wanted in the first place. Maybe if we'd recognized that it was a learning experience for them, we wouldn't have slapped them down in mid-lesson.

As for DW, 3D is the only reason I've had a passing interest to watch Mr. Peabody or Dragon 2 on streaming, and not an overwhelmingly fiery passion for that either.

[Dacey]

[Ben]

I see your and I raise you

[EricJ]

I see your and I raise you

And I'll throw in a "Look, YOU were the one who fired that drive-by 'Blu 3D is dead x3' shot to explain Katz's mismanagement and DWA's other theatrical problems, quit looking around and pretending to act innocent!"

(Again--DWA may have troubles, but at least they're still continuing to put out their titles on home 3D disks, as are all the other major studios. Think we can consider Disney's actions an isolated incident, and, as noted, somewhat suspiciously explainable.)

[LotsoA113]

There's a pretty good chance Penguins becomes the second movie in two years to make under $100 million for DWA. International numbers should be decent, but if their franchise pictures can't even be counted on for solid results, then there's a major problem at DWA considering how reliant they are on sequels and spin offs.

[ShyViolet]

Yeah, I'm really worried.

[LotsoA113]

I do wonder if maybe, just maybe, if DWA had stayed at Paramount, things might be a bit better. The quality of features like Turbo would still be lacking, but consider this; that particular studio releases a small total of movies in a year (typically 11-13). Each one they market is done more in the style of an event. Paramount releases plenty of bombs, but since they wouldn't have any other family movies in this scenario, they could solely focus on the DWA films.

Fox on the other hand has (counting the DWA movies) 5 animated movies this year, not to mention family movie tentpole Night At The Museum 3. That's a lot to go around and has resulted in some pretty damn sloppy marketing. Not saying Paramount never di that too (Rise of The Guardians was super inconsistent in tone in its marketing), but just food for thoughts on what could have been if DWA stayed at Paramount.

[Dacey]

The real advantage was that with Paramount, DreamWorks got endless marketing on Nickelodeon for free.

[Ben]

I said it before and I'll say it again...Paramount was DWA's natural home. The original DWs started with them, they released through them when they initially went public, and they partnered with Nick on TV stuff. The fit was perfect...but one side wanted more, and the other side didn't...

[ShyViolet]

Sorry to repeat myself but I still think Disney is DWA's natural home! So many people came from there not just JK and all that "adult in every child" stuff was total baloney...they just needed to put a spin on Walt's formula for the novelty of it. Even with all the "hip" humor and pop culture references there was still an essence of Walt's storytelling (if turned somewhat inside out, tone-wise): not just in the 2d films like POE, Spirit and El Dorado (Hey, those guys were Disney sidekicks if anything!) but even in Shrek (despite all the "Disney is stupid" jokes): the hero, villain, romance, bad guys. JK has pointed to Walt as his "teacher" over and over again in interviews and how he reads The Illusion of Life every year. "It's like Walt, but in the inverse" JK has said of DW's formula. No, it's like Walt but with some Variety-type inside humor, occasional potty jokes and a "hey, we're all just kidding" vibe. Because even though it took place in the Kingdom of "Duloc" with a Michael Eisner clone on a little tiny body, with a Beauty and the Beast reference for good measure, the moment when Fiona and Shrek realize they love each other is straight out of Walt's book.

The essence has ALWAYS been Disney, just like, as Ben has said, Pixar is simply an extension of Disney (if much truer to it than DWA, but still). Hiccup's adventures are to me as Disney-esque as anything, (a rebel torn between conformity and contemplating his place in life--that's Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid and Pocahontas right there). And Kung Fu Panda? Like Ariel and Belle Po doesn't fit in with what his father and his village wants and ultimately pursues what he believes in while finally achieving his true potential by becoming the Dragon Warrior. If that's not Disney, I don't know what is.
And the saddest thing about Rise of the Guardians, to me, is that it DOES harken back to the innocence and purity of Walt's "child in every adult" paradigm: despite the plot being all over the place it's the belief of the children, (right there with Walt's mantra) that keeps the Guardians real. It wasn't just the no potty jokes or pcr's, but the sure-fire certainty and empathy that the story worked to achieve. Maybe it didn't hit a complete home-run, but to me it's SO sad that DWA had to "rethink" that type after storytelling after the film flopped. There was an essence of exactly what DW's should have been doing all along, but they threw it away to make films like Turbo. More than anything I would love to see Guardians under the Disney label.

JK has said in interviews that the hardest thing about being fired from Disney was the fact that he'd never make animated films again. The word he left out was "Disney" animated films. What else was POE, after all, but an extension of Pocahontas' and Lion King's majesty? That's what he really wanted to make, and in the early DWA days that is WHAT HE SAID: "I want to make Terminator 2. I want to make Indiana Jones." Epics. Is that what DWA makes now? No. Is that what JK would have preferred to making cartoony CGI comedies to keep up with Pixar? Of course.

It was his decision not to, and a very sad one. But like I said the essence of Disney is still there in all his films (heck, even Shark Tale's plot rested heavily on Aladdin: young man branded a "loser" because of his place in life wants to gain fame and is mistaken for something he's not). That's why they belong under the Disney label.

[Randall]

Sure, there's lots of Disney-style story elements as you said; and on their better days, DWA has managed to make some beautiful work that can stand alongside Disney matterial. Absolutely.

But why would Disney want them? Yes, Disney bought Muppets, Star Wars, and Marvel... but mixing animation brands just doesn't feel right to me. And DWA still has the problem of being relatively unattractive investor-wise, plus their history of rivalry with Disney.

Still, stranger things have happened.