Minions on the Move

Illumination Entertainment made some changes to their release schedule... Some rather interesting ones...

The currently untitled Despicable Me spin-off prequel about the Minions is no longer opening on December 19, 2014... It's now slated to open on July 10, 2015, which was Pirates of the Caribbean 5's original spot. A very smart decision if you ask me, because Minions seemed to be in a tight spot anyway, being sandwiched between many family films and also going up against Brad Bird's Tomorrowland and the Hobbit trilogy's finale.

Illumination's untitled 2015 release is now set to open on February 12, 2016. Little by little, February is becoming a big month for animation. Gnomeo & Juliet showed that a small-scale film could generate good revenue during that time, due to the fact that families don't have anything to go see between the holidays and the March-April hit season. This year's Escape from Planet Earth also had good legs, The Lego Movie will more than pummel previous February box office records.

This makes me wonder, will DreamWorks move Home (formerly Happy Smekday!) to the December spot now that the Minions have packed up and moved? They could distance it from Disney's Big Hero 6... But it would still have competition to fight no matter what. I'm thinking that the December spot will be left blank, animation-wise, but you never know... These distributors always surprise us. Maybe something from 2015 could move up... Maybe Paramount Animation's SpongeBob SquarePants 2. They wanted that to be a 2014 release from the get-go to mark the 10th anniversary of the first film.

Maybe? Who knows...

What do you think will take the December 2014 spot? Or will anything take it at all? Do you think moving the Minions to a summer spot was a good idea? Sound off below!

Animation Box Office Update (July 2013)

Well July is almost over, and the big summer animation showdown is halfway done! The results so far?

Despicable Me 2 became the first animated film since Toy Story 3 - which came out three summers ago, let that sink in - to cross $300 million at the domestic box office. Man, what a wait! With $354 million in the tank overseas, the sequel has now crossed $660 million at the worldwide box office. It should end up with an even bigger total by the end of the summer. Minionmania is a force to be reckoned with!

The only downside is that this film really take quite a bite out of Monsters University. That film is looking to finish up with less than $265 million. Now that's a great total for any animated film, especially a Pixar film, but... This is a prequel to a beloved film whose adjusted domestic gross is nearly $370 million! This had the potential to make around $300 million with that great opening weekend behind it, but those Minions really wooed audiences left and right.

With that, Monsters University will have the second-to-lowest multiplier for a Pixar, even worse than Brave's. Again, competition did a lot of damage. Had it opened a month in advance (with Epic being an autumn release or something), do you think it would've made it to $300 million? Or somewhere close to that?

On the bright side, it has made $321 million overseas and now the film sits at $576 million. Considering how the big the first one was, this could've grossed even more. But it's still good, considering that it came nearly 12 years after its predecessor. The film should end up with around $650 million by the end of its run, making it Pixar's biggest since Toy Story 3.

Turbo seems to be picking up some steam, as it's actually quite a few millions ahead of Rise of the Guardians, which ended up taking in a little over $100 million domestically. Still, The Smurfs 2 and Planes are in the way, though it could still do okay enough through the next few weeks in order to pass $100 million. Or maybe not. I just don't want to know what DreamWorks will do in response. Wall Street is already pounding them, which is no surprise. Hopefully a solid overseas gross saves this film.

Epic has now grossed $106 million domestically as it should end up getting below $110 million by the end of its rather weak run, which is just a little bit more than what Guardians took in. Poor William Joyce... His recent film adaptations just can't do that well, can they? Oh well, at least he got an Oscar for one of his short films. Worldwide, it's made a decent $243 million. With Spain being the only market left to open in, it should settle for under $270 million for a final worldwide total. For a film that cost $93 million to make, that's not too, too bad. It's not great, either.

What's your on take on this? Will Turbo at least break even? Or will it be another money-loser for DreamWorks? How much more do you think Despicable Me 2 will make? Sound off below!

March Animation News Roundup

The month isn't over yet, but I thought I'd cover a few things I missed over the last few weeks. It's a been rather slow month for the blog, so I apologize. Been toying around with a new one that's not necessarily meant to be like this. This one is what I call the "extra rambly" blog, where stuff I deem not so suitable for this blog goes...

Anyways, what's my take on a few new things?

First up, the official trailer for DreamWorks' Turbo! Just in time for The Croods too, which is getting positive reception. The Chris Sanders-Kirk DeMicco film looks like another winner for the studio.

Since it's not on YouTube yet (DreamWorks is removing trailers that anyone is posting on copyright grounds for some reason), you can watch it on iTunes Movie Trailers.

What do I think of this trailer? I can buy the silly premise. Some have said that this film is essentially Cars and Ratatouille combined... Yeah, maybe the film has similar plot elements to Pixar's rat tale but it seems a little simpler. The snail just wants to go fast and race with cars, unless the movie reveals that there is more to that. Nice animation, good color scheme and some surprisingly funny parts. Yes, this film actually looks decent! I'll gladly take back any skepticism I had towards it.

The release date of the film was also changed. Originally set to open on July 19th, it's been moved two days forward, so you can catch this new DreamWorks film on a Wednesday!

~

Next up... A new trailer for Despicable Me 2!

I will be honest, I enjoyed this trailer as well. Sure it looks a bit generic and it will be harmless at best, but it looks funny and cute like its predecessor. I'm also glad that it has a decent plot too. This ought to be an enjoyable flick at best.

~

Who is scoring Pixar's The Good Dinosaur? Looks like John Powell is no longer onboard, this time it's none other than Thomas Newman!

Newman also provided the scores for Finding Nemo and WALL-E. Both scores are pure excellence. I have no doubt that his Good Dinosaur score will also be fabulous. I was really excited to see what John Powell would bring to the table for a Pixar film, but I'm fine with Newman assuming the job.

And of course, The Good Dinosaur opens on May 30, 2014.

~

Last but not least... The piece de resistance of recent animation news... A new hand-drawn Mickey Mouse short!

I could probably ramble about this for paragraphs and paragraphs... Let's just put it this way: I'm glad to see that Disney is bringing Mickey and friends back in a proper fashion. They haven't gotten such treatment since House of Mouse, and that was over a decade ago. If you ask me, this is the best Mickey short since 1995's Runaway Brain. The design... The design is great.

It mixes the look of the original shorts (down to the title cards, too!) with a minimalist new style. This style has already gotten praise, but it's also gotten a lot of detractors. It certainly is a lot more modern, but I think it does its job. It's modern enough for today's audiences while still having a classic feel to it.

The short was designed by Paul Rudish, who worked with Genndy Tartakovsky on his three animated shows: Dexter's Laboratory, Samurai Jack and Star Wars: Clone Wars. He is also the co-creator of Tartakovsky's unfairly canceled Sym-Bionic Titan. I always admired Tartakovsky's style, so it was nice to see Disney Animation try it on for a Mickey short. This is actually the first in a series of 19 new shorts which will air on television.

If anything, Disney should attach one of the shorts to their upcoming Frozen or maybe another film on their slate. People need to see good hand-drawn animation like this, and I could care less what Bob Iger said at the shareholder meeting concerning traditional animation... It's coming back. It may take some time, but it is coming.

Aside from the design, the short itself is funny. The lack of dialogue made it work for me, proving that you can still entertain without exposition. Everything else works well... The Cinderella bit was also priceless.

The series starts on June 28th on the Disney Channel. Definitely looking forward to this...

~

What's your take on this news? Did you like the trailers for Despicable Me 2 and Turbo? Or not? Do you think the new Mickey Mouse short is genius? Or is it the opposite? How do you feel about Thomas Newman providing the score for Pixar's upcoming film?

Sound off below!

Minion Mania

Illumination Entertainment... It's only been two years since they've released their first film in theaters. The three films they've produced all cost much less than what most animated films cost these days, they do very well at the box office and they're backed by incredibly aggressive marketing that pushes cutesy and candy-coated visuals down your throat. Kids love them, big time. Adults and teenagers found joy in Despicable Me, but Hop was for kids and Dr. Seuss' The Lorax was no different than Despicable Me with its paint-by-numbers writing and again, zany antics and visuals. Despicable Me 2 comes out next summer. That will probably be no different as well. What's next?

A Despicable Me spin-off film about the minions...

Slated for release in 2014, this is yet again another safe bet for Illumination. With Despicable Me 2 locked to do extremely well overseas and domestically, it's obvious that the little yellow creatures will be another money pot for the studio. Sure, the minions are cute and they certainly made Despicable Me a lot of fun, but having a whole film about them? That probably won't work well, but Universal and Illumination don't care. The kids will eat it up. Illumination is clearly the candy factory of the feature animation world, pumping out cheap, silly entertainment that aims at children first unlike the Pixar, Disney and DreamWorks films. Even Blue Sky and Sony to some extent.

That said, this will do it's job. Illumination is the most business-oriented studio of all the big guns, and boy do they reel in the dough each time out. The fact that their upcoming films are based on things we grew up with (minus the adaptation of Osamu Tezuka's Pluto, who knows what they'll do with that) or pre-existing source material for children proves this. All three of their films are no different from each other, despite the fact that Despicable Me was at least fresh and fun when it first came out.

Anyways, are you looking forward to a Minions spin-off? Or do you think it's a pointless cash grab?

The Animation Revolution, Part 2

In my article, "The Animation Revolution", I took a look at the current state of the animation industry in North America and offered what I felt were reasonable suggestions to the studios, suggestions on how to help the art form by opting for better films rather than derivative moneymakers. I am well aware that these studios want to make money, because, let’s face it, who doesn’t? At the same time, however, creativity is being shunted aside. I went over the other films that are dominating the animation scene, the ones that aren’t from whom I consider the “big three”: Disney, Pixar and DreamWorks. I will be honest, I do enjoy some animated romps that don't aim to be serious. I'm not saying "fun" animated films are bad. There's a a place in this world for those kinds of films. The problem is, there are too many in this day and age.

I firmly believe that we are going through The Third Golden Age of Animation. I believe it started five years ago in early 2007, after there wasn't such a glut of animated films but still enough to make it the start of the Golden Age. Fortunately, out of all the animated films released in 2007, we saw some quality endeavors instead of mediocre films that came and went. This would continue in the next few years, and we've seen studios like Disney and DreamWorks stepping up their game while Pixar delivered critical and commercial smashes. So here we are now, in the middle of 2012. Looking at the output, it seems like a very strong year. 2013 looks good too, as does the future projects coming from Disney, Pixar and DreamWorks. The Third Golden Age will continue, as long as these films wow critics and bring in the bucks, but...

In order to really kick things into high gear, mainstream animation in the United States and around the world needs an upgrade. I am perfectly fine with Pixar, Disney and DreamWorks making great, thoughtful family films. Family films are necessary, but the other studios making kid-friendly films that are less mature than what the big three offer need to step up their game. Now I suggested that they try ambitious projects every once in a while, while also making their bread and butter through tame projects. The problem is, if all of the big animated films are family films, some people are still going to perceive animated films as baby-sitters, children's films or films that aren't to be taken seriously.

More and more people are beginning to realize that animation is an art form, and animated family films are also for adults. Some people, however, say things like "These movies are for the kid in you" and "I love Disney and Pixar films because I feel like a kid again". Nostalgia isn't the reason why I admire great animated family films, and it should not be the reason why people enjoy animated family films. I admire them because they are great films. No "little kid in me" gets excited, I admire these films as a mature nineteen-year-old. I admire the storytelling, the heart, the writing, the craftsmanship, everything. What's also annoying is when someone says "These animated films are getting more and more adult these days..." No, they aren't getting "more adult". Are you trying to say they were only for children in the past and not for adults? The Disney animated classics were never only for kids, Walt Disney himself said so. I don't care how Disney themselves markets their films, the filmmakers and artists didn't make these things for kids first and foremost. Pixar's films from the beginning were not just for kids, and so on. These films have no target audience, they are made for anyone.

Also what makes them "adult"? One shouldn't use that term, because a G or PG rated film that's suitable for children (well, not all children of course) can be mature, meaningful and complex. Just look at Pixar's recent films like WALL-E and Up. What kid is going to watch WALL-E and say "Wow, what a great film about the evils of mass consumerism and reliance on technology"? Probably none, unless you spell the message out for them. They'll probably just like the colors, the characters and the funny parts. Also, will children immediately understand some of the deeper themes in the early Disney films? Probably not. Noticing these things as an adult, it's quite mind-blowing. Yes, Bambi's mother's death made children cry, but did kids understand the other themes of the film? Probably not. It makes it all the more frustrating when people write off family films as films that are not "adult". Well you might as well say the same about G and PG-rated live action films that are family film staples like The Wizard of Oz, The Sounds of Music, Star Wars, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and several others.

Unfortunately, people tend to equate specific film content with the terms "adult" and "mature". Anyone with common sense knows that gratuitous violence, sex and language doesn't make a film "adult" or "mature". Pixar's films have none of these, though they do tend to have violence, frightening scenes and humor that might not be suitable for everyone. Same with Disney and DreamWorks' recent films. However, they are still perceived by some as "kiddie" because they aren't rated PG-13 or R. Does a Pixar film need to be gory or loaded with sex and swearing in order to qualify as an "adult" or "mature" animated film? No. You might as well say something like Star Wars isn't adult because of this, but that film seems to get a pass along with every other G and PG-rated live action film because... They are "real" movies. That's another thing, why is live action the only supreme form of moviemaking? Animation is not an inferior way of moviemaking.

I guess if you are making an animated film, it has to be PG-13 or R-rated in order to be called an "adult" animated film. Funny, isn't it? In fact, family friendly live-action films are called "kids movies" as well. So if it's family friendly, that means it's kids' stuff? Lovely logic... As for family friendly animated features being perceived as kids' stuff, what can one do to shake that belief? Here's one way the studios could do it, by marketing a G or PG-rated animated film as something adults would have the desire to see.

One gigantic problem has persisted for a while, what is it? It's the way Disney markets their animated output. Whenever the classics come to home video, they are advertised as fluffy, kiddie stuff. There are exceptions, like The Lion King, where most of the advertising focuses on the more "epic" side of the film. Something like Bambi, a very mature and artistic film, comes off like a cutesy funny bunny romp in the advertising. It doesn't help when the covers from the home video releases always show Bambi as a fawn, smiling and happy with Thumper and Flower. Previews for Disney classics when they hit home video throughout the years usually showed kids enjoying them, implying that these films are nothing but mere baby-sitters. Even worse, some of their animated classics are shown on Disney's preschooler channel, Disney Junior. An animated classic that took years to make, intended for general audiences, being degraded by being shown on a channel for preschoolers... Sickening, isn't it? Disney, being one of the first things you might think about whenever "animation" or "cartoon" is brought up, wrote itself into a corner because of this, especially during the Eisner regime. Disney soiled their image and made themselves look like a shameless money machine that was making "kiddie stuff", rather than a studio that specialized in good quality family entertainment and the occasional adult-oriented films (notice I didn't say "adult" films).

Under Eisner, Disney "had" to be "for kids" some way or another. The films made during the Renaissance were usually watered down to satisfy children. Read up on all the horror stories. Certain films were altered because children got antsy during test screenings. Remember how Jeffrey Katzenberg almost cut "Part of Your World" out of The Little Mermaid? "If I Never Knew You" from Pocahontas got cut (though it was finished and put back into the film for its 2005 DVD release), ambitious ideas were ruined (see Atlantis: The Lost Empire) and unnecessary cuts were made to make certain films more kid-friendly (The Black Cauldron, Lilo & Stitch). Everything had to be for kids. Just look what happened to Dinosaur. Kid-friendly "sidekicks" were inserted into the films, not for comic relief, but to lighten the load for children. Pixar doesn't do that. Walt didn't do that. Even worse, merchandise was everywhere. Must I bring up the "Disney Princesses" brand?

Big difference!

Disney's blatant push to make themselves appear as an overtly kid-friendly brand ruined their image and hurt animation in many ways. Blame the corporate side, because the artists and storytellers at Disney want to make good films, not cheap cash grabs. Not toy commercials. The direct-to-video sequels and the Disney Channel's transition from a good channel into a teenybopper channel made matters worse. This "it has to be for kids" problem also affects other studios, who market their films as "kiddie stuff". Trailers usually focus on comic relief and the more cutesy elements of the films. Look at how Paramount has marketed some of DreamWorks' more recent films. Kung Fu Panda 2 and Puss in Boots are fine examples, with trailers and commercials that focused more on the comic relief than the story. This is probably why DreamWorks' hasn't really scored an opening weekend of over $50 million recently. Even some of the trailers for Pixar's films were pretty bad, such as WALL-E, Toy Story 3 and the Brave trailer from last autumn. Other animated films? Marketed as kiddie fluff. Laika's upcoming ParaNorman focuses more on the comedy, and less on the creepy ghouls. As for films that are fun comedies, there's no need to make something like Despicable Me look like something epic, since it's a comedy, but why is that formula (trailers with comic relief, less story) used to market animated films that aren't necessarily funny comedies? What if these films were marketed correctly? Sometimes Disney's marketing department gets it right. Brave's recent trailer is more in line with the Japanese trailers for Pixar films, which effectively start by introducing the characters and then showing the more dramatic side of the film, while using comic relief wisely. The trailer for DreamWorks' Rise of the Guardians is beautiful, not throwing unnecessary humor at you. The trailer for Frankenweenie is a nice trailer where the humor works. That's about it, though...

Now that I got that out of the way, here's another suggestion I have. Independent animated films... Think about it. They don't cost way too much to make. If a studio like Columbia or Universal were to acquire an animated film like that and give it some pretty good marketing, they could score a profitable success. Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox comes to mind, a $40 million film that was marketed poorly and released at the wrong time. Now what if 20th Century Fox gave it a better release date and marketed it with confidence? I'm not saying they have to go all out and shell out $100 million, but still, make the film look good from the trailers and TV spots. Make sure people know it's coming out. What if that little film took in around $70 million domestically and over $150 million worldwide? It would be a success for them. Instead, they got rewarded with a flop. Did they learn a lesson? Apparently not...

I understand that some independent animated films might not be embraced by mainstream audiences with enthusiasm, but you never know what audiences will accept. Rango scored a decent multiplier, and that wasn't like your usual animated film. Coraline, despite being deemed too scary for kids, had longevity at the box office. Something like Fantastic Mr. Fox or The Illusionist could've been profitable. They didn't have to be big blockbusters, but them being successful would give studios confidence if they don't want to do a big budget risk, like Rango or something like a Pixar film. Why can't that they try that? If that was being done right now, there would be a sort of demand for independent animated films and more foreign animated films. With all of those performing well alongside the big three and the kid-friendly romps, we'll get ahead. These animated films won't be hard to find. They'll get the attention they really deserve. With that, animation will get more and more accolades, and more people will realize that the art form has endless possibilities. Right now, animated films do very well and will continue to do well, and it's the perfect time to be ambitious, to start taking some risks. The medium is not a novelty, and people need to understand this sooner or later.

It can happen. If it does, new heights will be reached. Audiences will appreciate animation in ways they never did before. Animated classics will be sought after by those who once deemed animation as inane "kiddie stuff". Foreign animated films and more experimental endeavors will be the norm. Animation will dominate... It can happen...

"Dr. Seuss' The Lorax" Crosses $200 Million at the Domestic Box Office

Yesterday, Universal/Illumination's Dr. Seuss' The Lorax crossed $200 million at the domestic box office, the first animated film to do so since Disney's Tangled in spring 2011. It currently stands at $200.7 million, as well being the second highest grossing animated film released in March behind DreamWorks' How to Train Your Dragon. (It's possible that this will outgross it by a hair) To me, this is both a good thing and a bit of a bad thing for animation at the domestic box office. While I didn't think The Lorax was mediocre, it surely wasn't great either. Parts of it were entertaining and enjoyable, and most of the characters were likable. On the other hand, it was filled with some of the sugary things that tend to make animation look like a kid's thing. I'm all for animated comedies, and when they are pulled off well, they are good. The Lorax somewhat succeeds in doing this, but what doesn't soar is close to mediocre and at times cringe-worthy. All in all, it was a romp that was pretty much Despicable Me meets Dr. Seuss, but this time around, there isn't as much charm. It does feel very conventional and audience-friendly, and at times it panders to the younger set. It's an average animated film at best that's got its fair share of entertaining moments. However, you may disagree, and that's fine. What did you think of the film? Did you like it? Did you hate it? Was it just "meh" to you? I'm all ears.

Anyways, the fact that this was a success while films like Rango, Arthur Christmas and The Adventures of Tintin struggled at the box office somewhat annoys me. Again, I enjoyed The Lorax and thought it was a pleasant little diversion, but nothing more than that. Let's go back to March 2011, when Paramount's Rango hit theaters. This groundbreaking collaboration between ILM, Blind Wink and GK Films was surreal, off the wall and unlike anything else while still being conventional enough to entertain audiences. Yet this film was a moderate success at best, grossing $123 million domestically and getting mixed reactions from audiences. Dr. Seuss' The Lorax, with its candy-coated visuals and tone, was more family friendly and ultimately outgrossed every animated film that was released in 2011. Arthur Christmas was another one, it was coming from a studio who only scored one hit in the states, and it was lost in the shuffle. The Adventures of Tintin might've been directed by Steven Spielberg and produced by Peter Jackson, but it seems like Americans weren't too familiar with the source material. Both films had good legs, but they both missed $100 million domestically.

This is somewhat telling, that the domestic market (remember domestic doesn't just refer to the US) might only like derivative comedies, but if that is so, why did the recent Alvin and the Chipmunks movie underperform? While its legs were strong, it still wasn't the smash hit that the first two were. The Lorax got to where it got because of that opening weekend. I don't think anybody expected $70 million for this film. I thought my $45 million opening weekend prediction was a little too high. Anyways, The Lorax will probably finish with less than $220 million. If it does, it'll indicate that it certainly wasn't a huge hit with audiences after its opening. (You got to remember the aggressive marketing behind this thing, and the fact that it's based on a Dr. Seuss book) This means that the film will probably score a 3x multiplier at best, which is lower than the multiplier Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who! pulled back in 2008, without 3D. Also consider that this isn't a summer release, and family films do better during the summer since kids are out of school. If The Lorax was released around the time Despicable Me hit in 2010, $250 million would've been in play. Maybe, but this was clearly an audience-friendly animated film outside of Pixar and DreamWorks' films.

I'm perfectly fine with Pixar's films grossing $200 million every year, since they don't pander to any specific audience, ditto some of DreamWorks' recent efforts. Disney's films don't do so well because they are crippled by awful marketing campaigns. (I already voiced my frustrations about that on the last post) Then you've got your Blue Sky and Sony films that do reasonably well. Then you have your Rangos and Tintins that just don't catch on. How come films like these are ignored? Why can't they catch on? How come they aren't appealing to audiences? Here's some theories as to why they didn't do so well. Rango could've been a huge success, but it wasn't. Why? Too weird for family audiences, maybe? The problem is, there's still tons of adults and teens who won't attend an animated film or will regard it as a "kids only" flick (I always to have to point that out), and without family audiences, an animated film just seems to crumble. This is why anything animated that has a PG-13 or R rating won't come anywhere near $100 million at the domestic box office, unless it's based on something everyone knows that has been loved over the years. (The Simpsons Movie) Okay, maybe Rango was a little unconventional with its character designs and surreal tone, but certainly something like Arthur Christmas could catch on right? It's got appealing characters, funny elves and it's a warm sentimental Christmas story. Sounds like box office gold... It didn't even reach $50 million! Maybe it's because it was crammed between other family films that also disappointed at the box office (remember, The Muppets didn't really take off after its solid opening). The Adventures of Tintin was arguably more conventional than Rango, and that too missed $100 million. Okay, maybe American audiences aren't familiar with the source material, but even if they weren't, they would still see a classic action-adventure film regardless of what it's based on, right? The marketing didn't really establish who Tintin is, the trailers and commercials didn't really clue American audiences in on the original comics, and it wasn't an easy sell to begin with. It just looked like a generic action film to those who don't know about the original comics. Paramount probably assumed that audiences would go see a Raiders of the Lost Ark-style Spielberg film regardless of what it was based on and kids would beg their parents to take them because it has a comical dog in it. It was released amidst heavy competition and had to rely on legs to get it up to $77 million. Thankfully, it was a bigger success worldwide.

Anyways, enough with the debbie-downer stuff, it's nice to see an animated film actually clearing $200 million at the domestic box office. Sure, Cars 2 came close, but it seemed like $200 million was unreachable for this year's animated crop, even Brave. Well, with The Lorax doing well along with films like The Hunger Games breaking records, 2012 might be a great year for animation since it's already a great year for box office in general. I once referred to The Lorax as being the great decider of the fate of animation here in the states, and with it breaking $200 million, I am confident that we'll see a few other $200 million grossers this year. Maybe even a $300 million grosser. (I'm hoping that will be Brave) Now I know box office does not equal quality filmmaking, but if very high quality films (other than Pixar's) catch on at the box office, we might see a bright future for animation here in America.

As a side note, here are my current predictions:

The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! - $66 million

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - $117 million

Brave - $302 million

Ice Age: Continental Drift - $148 million

ParaNorman - $78 million

Hotel Transylvania - $102 million

Frankenweenie - $90 million

Wreck-It Ralph - $152 million (Come on Disney, start marketing this film!)

Rise of the Guardians - $204 million

The success of The Lorax indicates that there will be a good future for the medium, and that audiences are still interested in animation. Let's just look at 2011 and chalk it up to it being a bad year for box office in general. I wonder what would've happened if Rango or Tintin or Arthur Christmas were released this year, or better yet Cars 2, DreamWorks' two films and Rio. Would they have made more? What do you think? Do you think The Lorax being a success is a good thing or bad thing for animation here in the states? Also, how much do you think the other animated films will make this year? Sound off!

"Dr. Seuss' The Lorax" Opens Big

Good news for feature animation! Illumination Entertainment's animated take on Dr. Seuss' 1971 classic, The Lorax, grossed $70.2 million over the weekend. This makes it the biggest debut for an animated film in March, and the 8th biggest opening weekend total for an animated film. It is also the fourth biggest opening weekend total for a non-sequel animated film, only behind The Simpsons Movie ($74 million), The Incredibles ($70.4 million) and Finding Nemo ($70.2). The attendance, however, is probably not as impressive.

This is great for many reasons. While I didn't think the film was spectacular, it still deserves to do very well. We haven't had an animated film that topped $70 million on its opening weekend since Toy Story 3 in June 2010. 2011's animated crop usually grossed less $50 million on their opening weekends, the only one that didn't was Pixar's Cars 2, which grossed $66 million last June. Something tells me that 2011 lacked an "event" film, as I've said before. Dr. Seuss' The Lorax had everything going for it: It was fun for both kids and adults, it's based on a Dr. Seuss book, and its marketing was effective. Now I thought the highest this could go on opening weekend was at least $55 million, as I had predicted it would make around $40-45 million. Instead, it blows expectations away and grosses $70 million! That's just massive.

The real reason why this is a good thing is because it's proof that animation can still do well, even with insanely high ticket prices and 3D, although I believe more people probably went to see the 2D version of the film. When I saw it in 2D, the theater was packed. Last year's disappointments seemed to imply that people were getting more choosy with what animated films they were going to take their family to see. Dr. Seuss' The Lorax isn't the only surprise of the year, several other films are doing very well, so box office is on fire at the moment. Dr. Seuss' The Lorax came out at the right time.

So how much will it make in the long run? If this were to pull Despicable Me's 4.4x multiplier, then it can gross more than $300 million domestically, making it the first March animated film to do so and the first Dr. Seuss film to pass that mark. I don't think it'll score a multiplier that big, because Despicable Me was a summer release and kids are off from school. However, being a March release didn't stop How to Train Your Dragon from pulling a 5x multiplier. If this pulls Horton's 3.4x multiplier, then it'll end up at around $240 million domestically. This has a chance to become the highest grossing Dr. Seuss adaptation, as the current record is held by Ron Howard's live-action take on How the Grinch Stole Christmas, which grossed $260 million. The attendance won't be as high, though.

Anyways, it looks like this year's animated films will do very well at the box office unlike last year's disappointments. We're only getting a couple sequels, that's it. The rest are original, non-sequel films. With Dr. Seuss' The Lorax's chances at clearing $200 million domestically, perhaps Brave, Rise of the Guardians and a few other films can land between $150 million (several animated films last year struggled to reach that amount) and $300 million. Perhaps we can see films like Frankeweenie and ParaNorman grossing more than $100 million, bringing forth a stop-motion animation renaissance of sorts. Last year, the highest grossing animated film was Cars 2, which missed $200 million by just $9 million.

Animated films doing well at the box office, especially quality films, will lead to more quality animated films in the coming years. 2010 proved that mediocre, derivative animated comedies would no longer capture audience interest, and that good animated films will. 2011 was a minor bump, so here's hoping we can quickly recover from it. While I personally felt that Dr. Seuss' The Lorax was a pleasant but above-average romp, I'm still glad that it's successful. Here's the hoping same will happen with Brave, Wreck-It Ralph, Rise of the Guardians, Frankenweenie and ParaNorman, if they turn out to be good films.