Tease, Tease, Tease…

DreamWorks and 20th Century Fox are going about marketing How To Train Your Dragon 2 in some pretty interesting ways. First off, they unleashed a teaser that was a full sequence rather than a selection of parts from the film, doing what Disney used to do for trailers (think The Lion King and Pocahontas); though it's possible that the sequence won't be in the movie itself and that it's just a custom-made bit for the teaser, much like what's used in Pixar's teasers.

Still, it was a nice change of pace and the teaser did its job right, it made the movie look good. I have a feeling that this film's marketing will be the antithesis of the first film's shoddy marketing (the very marketing that brought in a $43 million gross as opposed to $60 million), coupled with the fact that many people saw the original and are anticipating the sequel.

Now, DreamWorks continues to go the mysterious route… Today they have released three teasers…

Of posters…

Yep, much like Marvel's "teaser of a teaser" strategy, DreamWorks is doing this with posters.

I assume the full posters will be unveiled tomorrow or sometime this week, and maybe a trailer is right around the corner! That would be awesome…

(via fellow Rotoscoper comrade Max de Hartog)

I Wanna See That!

This weekend, Alfonso Cauron's highly acclaimed Gravity fell an amazing 20% this weekend, grossing $44 million over the course of three days. Word of mouth is going to be particularly strong for this one, but it's a bit of an anomaly. A lot of "leggy" films often open small (The Help is a good example, off the top of my head) and end up grossing more than $100 million domestically based on the word of mouth, people who saw it telling their friends to go to see it, etc.

Why is Gravity different? Gravity opened with $55 million, a near blockbuster-level total! Heck, it outgrossed a lot of big budget tentpoles already released in the last three years! I see a lot of people talking about what audiences go to see, what audiences like and whatnot. I'll often hear generalizations like "American audiences are idiots and they only go to see crap! Transformers anyone?"

If that's the case, why did something like Battleship sink on its opening weekend? Also, who are you to deem the American moviegoers and masses "stupid" or "idiotic"? If anything, Gravity's success on opening weekend proves one thing to me...

American moviegoers (and this extends to moviegoers around the world) go to see what "looks" good. Quality is out of the question here.

If it's true that American moviegoers have no taste at all (they have a taste for something, even if it is drivel), then why is Gravity - a highly-acclaimed film that's even considered by some as one of the greatest films ever made - doing so well at the box office? How come many critically well-liked films have done well at the box office over the decades? Those meddling American moviegoers are idiots, right?

The high-horse mentality needs to go. Earlier in the summer, everyone sounded the alarm when Pacific Rim failed to outgross Grown Ups 2 on its opening weekend. Apparently this was humanity going backwards, humanity was coming to end! People had no faith in the human race because more people paid to see a stupid Adam Sandler comedy with pissing deer than Guillermo del Toro's passionately-made big-budget pet project. Apparently all those people who saw Grown Ups 2 but didn't check out Pacific Rim are bad, terrible, horrible idiots. Right? Right?!

I think the bigger issue here is how people treat others who have certain tastes in film. Yes, it would've been nice to see del Toro's film make big bucks at the box office, but it exists and it's delighted many - so what's the big deal? We are still going to get a lot of great films, both mainstream and independent. It's not like the end of the world or anything, all because of the success of an Adam Sandler movie that was going to do well to begin with. I wasn't horribly upset with Pacific Rim grossing less ($37 million on its opening weekend wasn't too bad for a film that was very badly marketed) than Grown Ups 2, I was more upset with how people reacted. (Film aficionado Cinemaxwell wrote an excellent piece on this topic.)

I accept the fact that people like certain things or will go to see certain things. Lots of people eat McDonald's, should we call them horrible idiots that only make humanity go backwards because they'll eat that and shun a gourmet meal? We can politely question their taste (literally in this case), but if anything, all this callous name-calling and insulting sets humanity back more than one's taste in film does.

Which brings me back to Gravity. If mainstream audiences are such idiots that set humanity on a trail to backwards-dom, why is this film doing well?

The marketing was great. The marketing made it look like a film that people would definitely want to see. When you succeed in marketing your film, it becomes a big success. Let's go back to this past summer. Why did Pacific Rim only open with $37 million? It had nothing to do with a pissing deer, Warner Bros. ' marketing campaign is to blame. The trailers made the film look highly uninteresting. I read the premise for this film a while back and was like, "Humans building robots to fight giant monsters? Sign me up!"

I saw the trailers and thought "Looks like every other blockbuster, where's the story?" Most people looked at it and said, "Looks like Transformers with giant monsters. Pass!" I'm in the know, I wanted to see the film regardless. I can't the say the same about other moviegoers who probably don't take the time to read up on movie news, and that's totally alright. The film world may not be of their interests, it's my interest on the other hand and that's why I'm in the know about upcoming films that aren't out for years. It's also partially the reason why I was excited about the film beforehand, I knew the premise, who was making it and everything else.

Also, coincidentally, Pacific Rim and Gravity are both Warner Bros. releases.

Americans gravitate towards blow-em-up/big budget blockbusters, you say? Well then, tell me why White House Down, Pacific Rim, The Lone Ranger, R.I.P.D., Battleship, John Carter and several other films like that underwhelmed on opening weekend?

Marketing.

Marketing makes and breaks films, no matter who they are from. The marketing's job is to give audiences an incentive to see a certain film, and if it fails, then the film most likely will. Legs are a different story, that kicks in after the opening.

I can extend all of this to the world of animation...

Let's look at ParaNorman, shall we? Focus Features did the marketing, the film's theatrical trailer was a poorly-edited and often painful mess of jokes, potty humor and ghoulish stuff. It was too much for toddlers in the audience, but it was also too silly for anyone over the age of 12. What happened next? This wonderful LAIKA film only grossed a paltry $14 million on its opening weekend last summer - a pretty damn low gross for a wide-release animated feature. Word of mouth and legs spread from the few who saw it on opening weekend, but it ultimately wasn't enough - the film only grossed $56 million in the end. (4x multiplier.)

Weeks later, Sony Animation's Hotel Transylvania opened with $42 million and had good word of mouth, and thus that film grossed over $140 million at the domestic box office. Double what ParaNorman took in. The marketing for that film was pretty good, the trailer actually had me chuckle a few times! On the other hand, I was worried that ParaNorman was just going to be laden with middle school-level potty humor and that would be the antithesis of the great Coraline. I actually wanted to see Hotel Transylvania despite what I had thought of the voice cast, the studio's overall track record and the (in my opinion) awful teaser.

I saw ParaNorman, I was blown away by it. Hotel Transylvania? I only enjoyed a few parts and I did like the animation, but I don't plan to watch it again. It was very forgettable in many aspects for me.

Audiences most likely reacted the same way I did to those trailers. Why did I see ParaNorman, though? I know who LAIKA is, I'm an animation fanatic and I had heard good things about it from screenings and those who were working on it. Are other American moviegoers even thinking of those things? No. They saw that poorly-made trailer and made the decision from the get-go: "No, I am not interested in seeing that." It didn't help that the movie was also not for young children. The film wasn't for little kids, and the marketing shut the adults out (Rule of thumb: You need to entice adults to go see your animated film if you want it to be a success!)... You were left with a film that did poorly at the box office.

How about we look at last year's animated films and this year's?

Only five films grossed over $50 million on their opening weekends. Two Pixar films: Brave and Monsters University. The other two were from Illumination: The Lorax and Despicable Me 2. Then there was Madagascar 3.

Pixar movies gross over $50 million on their opening weekends by default, even the dreaded Cars 2 - arguably more for young children than the other Pixar films - opened with a great $66 million! Why's that? Adults respect Pixar and know they'll deliver animated entertainment for them that they'll enjoy. Brave opened with $66 million, I think it wouldn't have done as well had it been made by another studio. Monsters University, we can except, it's a prequel to a beloved film. Prior to Toy Story 3, WALL-E and Up grossed over $60 million on their opening weekends, Ratatouille's adjust opening is $55 million.

As for Illumination's two films... The Lorax was something of a fluke, but the marketing for that film was great, it was in your face and also it's a Dr. Seuss adaptation! In hindsight, a $50 million+ opening was inevitable. Despicable Me 2? Well, the first one broke out on opening weekend thanks to great, great marketing... So the sequel was poised to do just as well if not better! Madagascar 3 came off two successful films and had an effective marketing campaign. How come films like Wreck-It Ralph, Hotel Transylvania and The Croods only settled for opening weekend grosses between $40-50 million?

The marketing campaigns for those films were good enough, they worked to ensure opening weekend grosses of that size. ($40-50 million) But none of those campaigns were great. Wreck-It Ralph looked like every other animated movie out there, except with some recognizable video game cameos. Hotel Transylvania looked like every other animated movie out there. The Croods looked like every other animated out movie there. All of them looked like colorful, silly, kiddie comedies. Wreck-It Ralph was classic Disney magic with a bite, it inched close to a $200 million domestic gross. It would've completely topped $200 million had the marketing been great. The marketing hid its inner greatness. The Croods got to $187 million thanks to having many weeks to itself, so that word of mouth did its work. If that film had to encounter an animated release in April, it would not have grossed over $170 million. Hotel Transylvania's word of mouth was good, and it didn't have any legitimate competition until Wreck-It Ralph came out, so it was able to gross over $140 million. Ralph got close to $190 million while duking it out with direct competition, Croods got to $187 million because it could, there was barely any competition in its way. Hotel Transylvania would've grossed less than it did if it fought what Ralph went up against.

When will a non-Pixar animated film gross over $50 million on its opening weekend? Simple, when one comes along that has a great marketing campaign that differentiates it from the other animated films out there. Free Birds doesn't look like it'll make that amount on its opening weekend. Frozen looks like Tangled on Ice to many fans and moviegoers, and typical animated film fluff on top of that. The Lego Movie might be the next non-Pixar animated movie to hit that threshold, given the great buzz that the teaser had gotten and the fact that it's... Well... A Lego movie.

In the end, marketing makes or breaks many films. Audiences go to see films that look good, the trailers have to get them interested early on.

Gravity's success on opening weekend more than proved that to me.

Zero Identity

Earlier this year, I talked about how Disney's animated output doesn't have that "event status" anymore and what they could do to bring it back...

This year, Disney's very questionable marketing department proved how inept they can be with the studio's upcoming Frozen. Aside from a cute throwaway teaser that obviously wasn't meant to really hype it up, the marketing team hasn't given this film or Disney's own animated output much of an identity. They had the perfect opportunity to do so with this film, with the success of Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph behind them, but they blew it.

Frozen's sole theatrical trailer (if another one comes, it'll be nice, but...) makes the film look like - as many have said - "Tangled on Ice" or better yet, every other animated film that's playing or opening soon. I'm more than tired of the new approach to marketing animated films, where the focus is on the comedy. Yes, I know, adults seem to only embrace "warm" and "funny" animation... But we need to find ways to make them embrace animation in general. Some films coming out in 2015 look to do that, that is if they are marketed correctly!

But that's not the point, the point is, Disney needs to market Walt Disney Animation Studios film as... Well... Walt Disney Animation Studios films. The attempt to break any studio confusion with the "From the creators of Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph" headings is not going to help. They need to create a new identity now that everyone else has excelled in the family-friendly animation market.

Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph certainly didn't feel Disney-esque from the marketing, the former's campaign was way too cynical and Shrek-like while the other relied on the video game jokes and the comedy in general, rather than immersing us in Ralph's story or the different video game worlds. Nope, "Hero's Doody" is what sells, not Ralph's dissatisfaction or the worlds he discovers on his journey.

Secondly, stop with this "Disney" branding. Disney is a corporation, yes, and it's okay to put just "Disney" on a box for a toy or some kind of consumer product, but... When presenting films, why in the world did you have to get rid of Walt Disney Pictures Presents? The last I saw of the name in print was on the posters for The Princess and the Frog, and as far as home video covers go, the Blu-ray and DVD of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs were the last to say "Walt Disney". (This was the end of that phase where Disney removed the 's from Walt Disney's on their video covers of the Walt films.)

Then in 2011, they got rid of the "Walt" and "Pictures" in the film logo itself. Everything from The Muppets and onwards opens with a logo that just says "Disney". Sorry, no defense there. It just seems so bland and corporate... Walt Disney Pictures has such a cinematic feel to it, take that away and you're left with something so... Shallow. I know Disney is a corporation, but I want to separate that fact from when I watch one of their films. I don't know, Walt Disney Pictures just complete it for me. Not only in the films, but on the posters and video covers.

But the biggest thing that is preventing Walt Disney Animation Studios from having an identity outside of their films is the suits' paranoia over young boys. You know how much I hate their fear of what young boys want to see in theaters.

Disney brass... Boys aren't your target demographic! Kids aren't your target demographic!

Who is your target demographic?

EVERYONE.

Play to everyone, families, kids, adults, moviegoers... You'll get a big success on your hands, it's not freakin' rocket science! By trying too hard to appeal to boys, you alienate the adults who will make your films more successful than they are. You also come off as sexist, and you also make young girls feel left out. What is this? A boys-only treehouse? This is Disney, something everyone deserves to experience.

Also, if you treat Disney animation as a treehouse for boys that doesn't allow girls... Then you're limiting your audience. Teens and adults don't want to go into a boys treehouse, because that's kids' stuff. Is Disney animation kids' stuff? No. Need I remind the suits about beloved films like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast??? Good thing those weren't made today, they probably would've done decent business at best.

This obsession with pleasing one minor chunk of their audience all stems from The Princess and the Frog. Disney's newly-hired staff came on board when that film was released, and those "geniuses" failed to realize that Frog's campaign was lame (Even I thought it looked terrible back then!) and that the film had other pre-release baggage. But in corporation fashion, the suits and marketing are never wrong... It's obviously the fault of the film, or the title. *proceeds to bang head against the wall*

Now I will be seeing the film, and all future Walt Disney Animation Studios films, because I'm a fan of Disney and I'm not a casual moviegoer. I'm an animation aficionado and a Disney nutcase. Is a lot of America like me or other animation fans? No.

Frozen's campaign has only lead to extreme skepticism. Many are doubting that this film can be good or anything decent, and a lot of people are up in arms over the character designs thanks to what a lead animators stated recently, people are angry about the revisions to the original tale (hello, Disney does this!) and people are also mad because it seems too much like Tangled. See Disney, you probably lost a good chunk of potential moviegoers. Even some animation fans aren't willing to see it, and this campaign probably is the reason. People go by marketing, not what they imagine about the film. It's a yay or nay decision when it comes to viewing the trailer in theaters, and it determines the opening weekend at the box office - and if your opening weekend gross isn't up to snuff, then you're deemed dead on arrival.

I fear that if Frozen does not meet expectations (I still think it's going to do well, since Tangled's awful marketing campaign still worked to some degree - but if that film had better marketing, it probably would've opened with a lot more than $60 million), then Disney will make another dumb assumption like "People don't like fairy tales" or "Fairy tales are old-fashioned". Disney was convinced that Tangled wouldn't do well based on how Princess and the Frog performed, and they were quick to say "no more fairy tales". I can only thank goodness that Wreck-It Ralph was not only profitable, but a hit that audiences really liked. Imagine if that didn't do well? *shudder*

Luckily, Disney has Giants coming. Not saying Frozen will underperform, but if it does, then that 2016 release would be a sort of test to see if audiences reject fairy tales or not. If anything, Disney should be asking, "What can we do to make audiences care about Anna and Elsa? We don't want this to go over badly" not "Do audiences like fairy tales anymore?" Why don't they consider how Disney anything would go over in the 1990s? Audiences had no hesitation showing up for The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, because both looked great and people were rediscovering Disney - something they had missed. Audiences also didn't hesitate to see the Arabian Nights-flavored Aladdin or the all-animal Shakespearian The Lion King. Even Disney was a bit worried about that one at the time, but look! People flocked to see! It's one of Disney's most popular films!

Why? Because it looked great. Make it look great, and when people realize how good the movie is, the word of mouth spreads and BOOM! Success! The marketing seemed to forget that when they compiled the trailers and designed the posters for Tangled and Frozen. I'd say Wreck-It Ralph is their only success, but barely, because the second trailer wallows in animated trailer formula a little too much. If anything, Disney's marketing department succeeds in the viral department. Now they are great there!

I absolutely loved Toy Story 3's viral campaign, which played directly to college-aged folk and teenagers so that the trailers and TV spots did not have to. (For the record, Toy Story 3's final domestic trailer was bad.) It also had quirky little things, like the 80s-styled Lots-O-Huggin' Bear ad, the Japanese Lotso ad and other things. Wreck-It Ralph's campaign had those super cool advertisements for Litwak's, arcade flyers and some cute fun stuff like the Fix-It Felix hammer advertisement. Now that's smart viral marketing.

But the sad thing is, they excel at this but not at doing the real marketing: The trailers, the posters and the TV spots. Maybe Disney needs a top wing of people that'll handle that stuff, and let the current marketing people do the viral stuff. That would be great, but will Disney do this? Probably not.

If this happened, then they could approach the films the way the 90s marketing team approached films like Beauty and the Beast. Look at these posters...

The first poster is appealing to adults. It makes the film look like a grand event, something they should go see - regardless of whether they have children or not. I've read about how Beauty and the Beast was promoted as a "date film", well I can believe that because Disney did do this for some re-releases at the time (late 1980s), such as Sleeping Beauty. That re-release did pretty well! Give the adults a reason to go by themselves and see it, they'll go see it!

Now the second poster is definitely kiddie. Its color scheme is very bright and saturated, it's definitely nothing like the film's color scheme! Everyone's all happy and chipper, there's heavy emphasis on the comic relief and side characters. Where's the Beast? Oh he's brooding in the clouds, but that's in the far background.


Now look at that! Now this is not a perfect trailer by any means, but it at least gives you a good idea of what the story is, the editing isn't slip-shod, they make room for both comedy and the other aspects (points off for showing the mob trying to get into the castle), plus it pleases both adults and kids. It makes the film look good to both. Oh, and it has *gasp* SONGS! Yes, that's right! This film has songs in it! Oh yeah that's right, it's a Disney movie. Tangled and Frozen's marketing went to great lengths to hide the musical numbers, with the exception of this year's D23, since the people running D23 know that the fans are present.

Also, notice anything else?

Disney's 30th full-length animated motion picture? The canon numbers don't matter anymore, do they? When Tangled came out, Walt Disney Animation Studios put out this awesome "50 Classics" montage... Why wasn't that in the trailers? Or a teaser?

Dozens of all new Disney characters? Disney characters in the 1990s were treated as one big family, and Disney would act as if new faces like Belle, Beast, Aladdin, Jasmine, Simba, etc. were new to the Disney family. "The Disney family grew even larger with new friends like Ariel, Flounder and Scuttle..." said announcer Mark Eliot on the Beauty and the Beast behind-the-scenes first look from mid-1991. (This appears on the 1991 VHS of The Jungle Book.)

Featuring 6 new songs from the composers and lyricists of The Little Mermaid? Yes, remember when songs mattered? Not to mention the people who crafted the songs?

What happened to announcers? Now we get quick text saying quick things. "She's Been Grounded... Like... Forever!" Jokes dominate, the story takes a backseat to pretty much everything and... Ugh...

These things that gave Disney an identity are gone, it's time for them to come back. It's time for Disney marketing to give Disney animation its own identity - in turn, they'll entice many fans, adults and other people to see their films in droves.

Staying Afloat

The boy on the moon has been having some trouble lately...

2013 hasn't been a stellar year for animation in general - regardless of the breakout performance of Illumination's Despicable Me 2 and some other notable happenings - it's actually a rather dour one, from layoffs to the VFX industry problems to DreamWorks' reaction to a certain film's box office performance...

In February, DreamWorks announced that up to 350 people were going to be let go and that a film on their upcoming slate was sent to the back burner. DreamWorks had plans to release three animated films this year, much like 2010 when they did so for the first time to enough success. In 2010, How To Train Your Dragon was a sleeper hit and then some. Shrek Forever After did good here, but became the biggest installment in the series in foreign markets partially thanks to 3D. Megamind on the other hand was viewed as something of an underperformer, but nothing too disappointing.

2011 and 2012 saw DreamWorks sticking to the usual two-a-year routine, this year was going to see three films from the studio: The Croods, Turbo and Mr. Peabody & Sherman (which was slated to open on November 1st). What happened?

Rise of the Guardians, the second 2012 release, was a box office dud.

Regardless of what happened, whether it was poor marketing or poor timing, Rise of the Guardians turned out to be a bump in the road for the studio. If one film could lead to such layoffs and the cancellation of a project (Me and My Shadow) that was less than 2 years away and already in production, then I think DreamWorks should rethink their business model a bit...

Rise of the Guardians would also be the last DreamWorks Animation film released under the Paramount distribution deal, and Paramount tripped up the marketing on a lot of their films: Guardians' marketing campaign was their biggest disaster, selling the whimsical, often dark fairy tale-esque story as an action-packed Avengers wannabe for little kids. The already-bland title didn't help, either. Why wasn't the film called The Guardians of Childhood? What goes on in these title-changing people's heads? (I'm looking at you too, Disney and Warner Bros.)

So you'd think that under 20th Century Fox, things would look up, right? The Croods was one hell of a rebound, making a lot here (the press immediately wrote it off as a disappointment when it opened with $43 million, short of the $50 million expectations) and a whole lot more worldwide, and it was backed by an overall effective marketing campaign. Not a great one that ensured a Kung Fu Panda-sized opening (when will DreamWorks ever score a non-sequel $55 million+ opening?), but one that certainly paid off. Having all of late March, April and even May to itself was a real advantage.

Unfortunately, the hope train slowed down to a snail's pace. Literally.

Turbo, I will admit, was at least backed by an aggressive marketing campaign that did get the word out. The problem is, the film just didn't appeal to adults or anyone else. The concept seemed too ridiculous for anyone over the age of 10 to take seriously, and worst of all, Despicable Me 2's momentum couldn't be stopped. It was unwise to open the movie at the time, DreamWorks should've opted for a late August release or perhaps an autumn release. Opening with a weak total, Turbo won't reach $90 million at the domestic box office and it may fail to double that sizable $135 million budget worldwide (it's not out in every other country yet). More layoffs ensued.

Next year gives us Mr. Peabody & Sherman, How To Train Your Dragon 2 and Home. We know which one will be the hit. Peabody is guaranteed to do okay given the source material and how much more marketable it sounds (it doesn't sound generic like Turbo), Home is a gamble with a terrible title.

2015? The Penguins of Madagascar, B.O.O. and Kung Fu Panda 3. The sequels/franchise films will do well, B.O.O. can do okay but it's being sandwiched between Paramount Animation's Monster Trucks and Pixar's Inside Out. It has to be more than just average in order to do well amidst that summer's animation tsunami. If Turbo was some great film, it would've done well despite being crammed between Despicable Me 2, The Smurfs 2 and Planes. If anything, DreamWorks should release this in August.

2016 has Mumbai Musical, which is going to go head to head with whatever Disney Animation has ready for the March 2016 slot (it's probably going to be Zootopia given how far along it's gotten), How To Train Your Dragon 3 will make bank, obviously. Trolls? Easy sell, so it should do well enough. Maybe. Are people willing to show up for a musical based on the Good Luck Troll dolls?

But it seems like DreamWorks wants to do this 3 films a year thing every year starting with 2014, now that Mr. Peabody & Sherman was moved from this autumn to the spring.

So what keeps DreamWorks above water?

It's the films, because the films are what they've really got.

Regardless of what one might think of the quality of the DreamWorks films, it must be acknowledged that DreamWorks is pretty gutsy for an independent studio that's not backed by a big safety net. If you look at the other studios, like Sony Animation and Blue Sky and Illumination, they're backed by known distributors but they don't spend much more than $100 million on their films because they know what the ramifications will be if one of them were to underperform. I commend them for that, actually. Look at Blue Sky. Epic didn't do so hot, but thank goodness they didn't spend more than $93 million on it.

On the other hand, DreamWorks spends more than $130 million on each film of theirs. Not a very smart move each time out, considering that they aren't owned by Disney or a mega-empire like that. Disney can handle a flop, which is probably why they let their animation studio and Pixar spend over $150 million (Pixar goes big with roughly $200 million) on their films, because there's still that aforementioned safety net that'll catch the two studios if they were to fall, not to mention lots of merchandise. Disney's marketing department also tries to make sure that these films do well, and their marketing machine is probably much bigger than that of the other studios'. (Though I question what they are doing.)

DreamWorks justifies their budgets, as their films do look great for the most part. They have top talent there, too. But... Is this overspending good for the company? Not quite...

It's surprising that they've had two money-losers recently, after a string of highly successful films. Everything released from Shrek The Third (mid-2007) to Madagascar 3 (last summer) has done well or made a profit. Sequels are essential because they need them, but luckily in this day and age, DreamWorks is beginning to put actual effort into their sequels. Jeffrey Katzenberg also jumped all over 3D, and went about it the right way (one thing I can actually praise about him) until 3D itself saw a collapse. Sad thing is, DreamWorks put their all into the 3D for their films. It was also a smart move due to 3D's success in foreign markets... But the domestic market does matter too. A good $200 million overseas gross couldn't save Rise of the Guardians and it won't save Turbo either, as the films needed to take in more than what they made here.

Reality has sunk in for them, now that two films of theirs have lost money. Now what do they do? They have three solutions to their little problem...

DreamWorks purchased Classic Media for a paltry $155 million last year, acquiring many beloved properties that they can distribute on home media and make some profits. They're also going to mine the different franchises for new ones, as they are planning to make a film based on Lassie. Classic Media also owns the likes of the UPA filmography (please DreamWorks, release it all on a collector's Blu-ray set!), Jay Ward cartoons, Filmation cartoons and several other things. Good investment for them.

DreamWorks also plans on expanding on their theme park plans as well as launching a family-oriented television channel. I admire these decisions, because with that and the live shows, DreamWorks could build up some sort of a safety net. I'm not saying that Katzenberg is aiming to make DreamWorks a Disney-sized empire, but expansion is nice. Fox's upcoming Malaysian theme park could also help, though they seem more interested in their own properties (i.e. the Alien franchise, Night at the Museum, Life of Pi) and Blue Sky Studios. Should DreamWorks opt for a theme park here in the states? Europe, maybe? It could happen, and it could be pulled off. But what else could DreamWorks do to justify spending so much on their movies each time out?

DreamWorks Oriental isn't just making animated films, they're actually making live action China-friendly films. Remember that project I talked about? The Tibet Code? Much to my surprise (how that slipped past me, I don't know), that's actually a live action film! Anyways, given how big China's market is and how big DreamWorks' films are there (The Croods actually had to pulled from theaters to let other Chinese animated films get some spotlight at the box office!), revenue from these kinds of films can keep them afloat. Other markets could also boost these films too, given 3D and whatnot. While I may not admire Katzenberg for his animation sense, I do admire his shrewd ways of running a business.

Now... Aside from possible safety nets and things to fall back on, what can they do about their films?

Well, if they are gung-ho about releasing three in a calendar year for the next 3-4 years (or possibly for a very long time), well they better crack down on both the quality of the films and the quality of the marketing.

Did Turbo really need to be a 96-minute long, $135 million movie for theaters? If anything, that could've made for a more inventive and even bizarre short film (given that concept) or a television series. Oh wait, a TV series is coming. Maybe that might help the film in the long run...

Maybe if DreamWorks made that snail tale a decidedly lighter film (with a smaller budget), it could've been a profitable gap filler for them so that they could move on to bigger things with ease. Maybe they should scale back on some films, go small scale and actually do what the other big studios (even Disney and Pixar) aren't doing. It would allow them to experiment more. Maybe DreamWorks should give hand-drawn another go (they almost partially did so with Me and My Shadow, but they had to indefinitely postpone it), but something with a smaller budget than their usual endeavors. The hopeful optimist in me suggests that someone will make a successful hand-drawn film, spurring Disney executives to invest in the medium.

DreamWorks very much wants to be more than just a studio, with the theme parks, live events, TV shows based on their hit films and the plans to create a channel (great idea). I think Katzenberg and the brass know that relying on big budgeted animated films is a strategy that could cause more harm than good, so these new routes are probably going to be taken. If anything, DreamWorks should strategically pursue building their company, making them more than just an animation house. They're the only ones who are really in that position, so there are opportunities there.

As for the channel... How about original programming? Instead of relying on feature films to kick off new shows, why not create an all-new show? Disney opted for that in the mid-1980s (partially for the wrong reasons) and look what happened? Disney proved with shows like Adventures of the Gummi Bears and Darkwing Duck that you can come up with original characters for successful shows, while relying on others that were based on pre-existing Disney characters (i.e. TaleSpin's Jungle Book cast) or other properties. DreamWorks could possibly reboot Classic Media properties for new cartoons, either for their channel or another network. What about actually giving those properties' early incarnations re-runs on their channel or another one?

It's all right there for them.

I mean, what are they going to do if another film of theirs doesn't recoup its costs? What if Peabody and Home struggle next year? Today's box office climate requires your film to either do well on opening weekend or to make a very good amount of money domestically. It's time that DreamWorks prepares themselves, they need to thrive. Their slate is both ambitious and risky in many ways.

Sequences

Full scenes in animated films as trailers? Yes, this is something that I believe should be done with more animated films...

A little history here...

In 1993, Walt Disney Feature Animation didn't have something ready for release for the movie theaters all around the world. Their King of the Jungle project, retitled The Lion King at this point, had run into major league story problems. As a result, they couldn't have it ready by its planned Thanksgiving 1993 release date. Disney animated films were now an annual holiday season event after the success of Oliver & Company in 1988 and they'd have one film ready every autumn... But The Lion King would break that trend and soon Disney animated films were big summer events.

Disney went about marketing this film in a very unique way... A trailer for the film wasn't even a trailer per se. In fact, it was the entire opening sequence of the film! Audiences saw "Circle of Life" unravel before them in the theaters. It certainly drummed up anticipation! Pocahontas' early trailer that debuted with the sorta-kinda re-release of The Lion King in fall 1994 was the full "Colors of the Wind" sequence.

Rarely do studios do this, and after the mid-1990s, it wasn't much of a thing anymore. Disney did this one more time in 1999 for Dinosaur, as the trailer attached to Toy Story 2 had that incredible opening sequence and then in 2001, Fox made a brilliant decision by showing moviegoers the first couple of minutes of Ice Age before the film hit theaters. That hilarious sequence with Scrat immediately got audiences to think, "Gotta see that!"

Some 11 years later, Disney pulled a Lion King on us when marketing Pixar's Brave last spring. A slightly shorter version of the archery tournament sequence was unspooled in early 2012 and boy did it amaze! Now I really wish that this was sort of a common once-in-a-while thing for Disney and Pixar, and maybe even DreamWorks.

To be honest, I'd like to see a first act sequence instead of a frenetic, messy trailer for Frozen or something from Pixar like The Good Dinosaur. Sequences that don't give away way too much (one of my biggest problems with Pixar's trailers), and ones that I'd actually take the time to watch over and over. It's just a great way to hype up your film and show audiences why they should see it, rather than pelting them with quick cuts of scenes and barrage of jokes and action scenes. That's what trailers for other animated films are supposed to do.

Earlier this year, I had suggested that Disney should make trailers that make it very clear who made the film since their upcoming films are computer animated. Frozen's teaser begins with "From the creators of Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph", which is sort of a good start... But what happened to the trailers for Disney films that would show montages of the classics? Remember when the numbers were a big deal? Disney's 30th full-length animated motion picture event! Remember that lovely montage that was released on YouTube by Walt Disney Animation Studios when Tangled came out? That montage that showed all 50 of the classics? Why wasn't that part of a trailer for Tangled?

But all of that aside, Disney and Pixar (to some extent) would really differentiate their work from the rest with some trailers that had sequences. DreamWorks could do it too, given the quality of their films nowadays. How To Train Your Dragon 2's teaser might be a scene from the actual film, and if it is, bravo to DreamWorks and Fox. I think a sequence, a well-picked one, would really gear audiences up. It would make the film feel like an event, and that's what Disney Animation films need these days... That "event status". These films aren't "hits of the week", they are something more and the marketing needs to accentuate that...

Role Reversal

Not necessarily news, but something I've been noticing lately... Little by little...

For a very long time, being a fan of Pixar meant that you had to wait a while for information on an upcoming film of theirs. Simple things, like the title and a taste of the plot. You didn't know much about their full upcoming slate between 2003 and 2007-ish...

Let's go back to May 30, 2003... The night Finding Nemo opened in theaters nationwide. Before the film began, a trailer for The Incredibles played, which showed a rather plump Mr. Incredible attempting to put on a belt. Like all of the Pixar teasers since A Bug's Life, what's in it will not be in the film. It's footage that's made special for the teaser. When is it coming out? November 5th... 2004... Over a year away! What's Pixar got cooking for 2005? Go to IMDb or look at some news and you'll see Cars, a John Lasseter film. What is it about? All we know is that it's about talking cars (obviously) and it takes place in a Route 66 setting. What do the Pixar wizards have in store for us in 2006? Ratatouille... What do we know? Just the title and who will be directing it, Jan Pinkava. That's it... Nothing about any future productions, unless something about WALL-E happened to slip through the cracks... Chances are you came across W.A.L.E. instead... And you had no idea what it was about. WALE? What does that mean? Wales? Whales?

Flash forward November 5, 2004... The Incredibles is now playing at your local cineplex after the long wait, the reviews are stellar, the film is making big bucks at the box office! A teaser trailer for Cars is rolling before it. The teaser - like every teaser Pixar had made since A Bug's Life - has footage that won't appear in the final film. All we knew at the time was that it was coming to theaters on November 4, 2005... Until it was delayed to June 9, 2006 one month later. We knew Owen Wilson and Larry the Cable Guy were in it, we knew the basic plot, but that was about it. Now what about Ratatouille? What's the deal? Well, we got a plot synopsis! One that was... Well... Nothing like what we got! A rat living in a Parisian restaurant with an eccentric, famous chef? Not quite. (Oh, and do you remember any of those "the villain will be an exterminator" rumors?) No word on anything else for a good while...

June 9, 2006... Cars is now out. A Ratatouille teaser is shown before it, implying that the film is about a rat who wants to make a living off of good food in Paris... Essentially wacky rat hijinks where he has to steal cheese and make it through the battlefield of the kitchen to survive... "Good food... Is hard! For a rat to find!" he says to the audience while his brother Emil chows down on garbage. What's coming after Ratatouille? Well now that Disney had acquired Pixar, we knew a Pixar-produced Toy Story 3 was coming. Possibly for a 2009 release, after that W.A.L.E. movie, which was the 2008 release!

Anyways, in short, we knew little about Pixar's upcoming projects. Details and information would slowly come forth as a certain movie's release date came closer and closer. In 2003, we saw a teaser for The Incredibles that didn't say much about the plot nor did any website. Cars and Ratatouille were films that we knew about, but knew nothing about. In 2003, Cars was being geared up for production and Ratatouille was in development. WALL-E was in early development, the failed Trash Planet concept from 1994 was being retooled. Some of the first pieces of concept art were drawn for Up. Brave could've been in its very, very, very early stages at this time as well... And lord only knows what else!

By contrast, in a year like 2004, we knew about upcoming Disney projects like Chicken Little, A Day with Wilbur Robinson, American Dog, Rapunzel Unbraided and Fraidy Cat. Other projects were rumored, and we knew some of the plots of these films. Rapunzel Unbraided was slated for a 2009 release! Way back in 2004 they had that planned! American Dog seemed like it would be out sometime in 2006 or 2007. Wilbur Robinson was on track for 2006 since early 2004. Fraidy Cat? Must've been 2010. Throughout the years, we heard of changes and new additions to their upcoming slate as we got very little info on Pixar's upcoming films.

Now... Let's flash forward to what has gone on in the last 5 years.

Prior to April 2008, we all knew that Up would follow WALL-E in 2009 with Toy Story 3 coming after it for 2010. Out of nowhere, a full upcoming slate was unveiled that very spring... The announced slate told us about Newt (June 2011), The Bear and the Bow (November 2011) and Cars 2 (2012). We even got info on the directors behind the projects, and even plot details for Newt and The Bear and the Bow! Cars 2's details gave us a good idea of what it would be about. We saw an unusually big amount of details unravel before us in the coming years.

Today, we know of many Pixar films that are in production. They are still secretive to a certain extent though. The Good Dinosaur, which opens next summer, was first announced in 2011. A taste of the plot was given to us in September of that year, long before they settled on a title in April 2012! They also told us what their then-untitled mind movie was about, the title wasn't officially revealed until last month! Lee Unkrich's "Dia De Los Muertos"? Well we only knew the title of that one and the main theme. Monsters University, of course we knew some stuff about that film as well.

So now... Today, May 25th, 2013... What do we know? What's coming after Inside Out hits theaters in summer 2015? Finding Dory is set for November 2015, we know a bit about the plot and some other details. We still don't know much about the Dia De Los Muertos film, but we know that quite a few untitled films are in the works: A Teddy Newton-directed film, a Mark Andrews-directed film and two mystery films... And possibly another sequel. Gee... Back in 2004, we only knew about 2-3 or so. Nothing about what would come after 2006. (Remember, Ratatouille was initially pegged for fall 2006 at the time.)

Now, what's the deal with Walt Disney Animation Studios?

Frozen and Big Hero 6 are next and we know enough details about them. (Well... Maybe not Frozen!) Anything after that? Well we know of an untitled Ron Clements/John Musker project, reportedly a South Pacific-set re-imagining of Rumplestiltskin called The Name Game... Reportedly being the key word here. Whether it will come out in 2015 or 2016, who knows? We also know of a secret project that will be directed by Tangled co-director Byron Howard; a "wild and weird" talking animal comedy starring Jason Bateman that happens to be action-packed! No idea of a release date has been implied at the moment. John Kahrs, director of Paperman, has a film in development... And that's about it! No word on the Mickey Mouse animated feature that Burny Mattinson confirmed back in 2011. King of the Elves? Is that even in the cards for now? Anything else? Nada...

So for Pixar, we know what's coming in 2015 and possibly 2016 along with details: Inside Out, Finding Dory and Lee Unkrich's Dia De Los Muertos film. We know the basic plot lines to the first two, nothing on the third. We are also aware of two untitled projects and possibly 2-3 more. Of course, we know nothing about them other than minor details (i.e. who is directing it).

Disney Animation? Well we got word on projects that are in the works, but no release dates have been set... All we know is this: Ron and John have a film coming, Byron Howard has got something in the works and John Kahrs is working on something. Frozen's story, everyone knows, obviously. Big Hero 6? Nothing. We don't know what the plot will be or who is even in it.

My point is... They're becoming more and more secretive these days. Pixar is still secretive to an extent, but nowadays, we know of projects that will be released in theaters after 2016. For Disney Animation, we know bits and pieces of what's in store for us after Big Hero 6 bows in 2014. This secretive streak has been beginning slowly since 2008, in terms of marketing at least. In the summer of 2008, Disney released a teaser trailer for The Princess and the Frog that contained animation that was not in the finished film. Just like a Pixar teaser! Of course, the following trailers would contain footage from the finished film. In the summer of 2010, Disney made a similar move for Tangled. The teaser contained some scenes from the finished film, but some of it was composed of scenes that were made special for the teaser. Did Rapunzel beat up the unsuspecting Flynn Rider with her hair in the film? Nope!

From 2008-2009, we had a clear idea of what was coming in the next few years: The Princess and the Frog in 2009, Tangled in 2010 (then titled Rapunzel), Winnie the Pooh in 2011 (first announced in mid-2009) and King of the Elves in 2012. As King of the Elves slowly began to fade away into cancellation, rumblings about other things made the waves.

In 2010, we got word on Reboot Ralph, a rewrite of a failed film called Joe Jump. When was that supposed to come out? March 22, 2013. When Tangled came out, there was some talk of Mort, a Ron and John-helmed adaptation of the Discworld novel by Terry Pratchett. Turns out, Disney couldn't secure the rights. King of the Elves and the Snow Queen project? They were on and off.

2011? Reboot Ralph becomes Wreck-It Ralph and the film is moved from its original spring 2013 spot to November 2012. Frozen is announced in December, taking the fall 2013 spot that Pixar's The Good Dinosaur previously occupied. What's coming in 2014? Who knows... King of the Elves? That Mickey Mouse film that was mentioned once?

Summer 2012, Disney flat out tells us that Walt Disney Animation Studios teamed up with Marvel Studios to do Big Hero 6. It's 2014 release date is confirmed earlier this year, but we all knew it would be the 2014 film.

Now here we are, late spring 2013... We know about two untitled projects, rumors surrounding Ron and John's film made the waves not too long ago... But we don't know if it's really a Rumplestiltskin film or not. We do know, however, that it has a South Pacific setting. We only know about some details surrounding Byron Howard's film. King of the Elves is presumably off the slate. Anything on Mickey Mouse? Nothing...

Slowly but surely, we're beginning to know less and less about what the Mouse House is cooking up for the next 3 years. It's funny how they are seemingly swapping roles with their Emeryville allies now, ten years later. Walt Disney Animation Studios, now that they have climbed back to the top of the mountain, are now adapting Pixar's old routine by keeping details, titles and plots under wraps. They have a whole slate of "exciting" projects... They just aren't telling us! Believe me, I know it!

Maybe next year, when Big Hero 6's teaser is out, this is what the deal will be... Their 2015 release? We know the title of the film and the plot... That's it. 2016? Just the title of the film and the director(s) behind it. 2017? Nothing. No info, no film is listed. We don't hear about it until 2015.

Do you think Walt Disney Animation Studios will end up becoming very secretive about upcoming films in the coming years?