Rising Again?

DreamWorks might want their ill-fated, ambitious animated feature Rise of the Guardians to make its money back somehow...

A new Blu-ray edition is hitting shelves on November 5th, with cover artwork that plays up the Christmas angle of the film.

Fortunately for DreamWorks, they were able to release this film on Blu-ray earlier in the year because it's not truly a Christmas film (unlike something like The Polar Express, which they waited a year after its theatrical release to put out on DVD for obvious reasons) and it actually takes place around Easter. But since Santa Claus and Jack Frost are in it, this release was inevitable. I had actually thought way back when that DreamWorks could re-release this film on Blu-ray with different packaging for a Christmas release, and perhaps a Halloween release focusing on Pitch. (Probably a no-go since Pitch was the villain and he supposedly scared many kids.)

Like the original Blu-ray cover, this doesn't present our childhood heroes as badasses. The more they promote it as cutesy fluff, the more people will scoop it up. Unfortunately, in America, you have to market animation as cutesy or comedic. Just look at Frozen's new trailer...

Anyways, this might help the film get more fans and hopefully those who didn't see it get to check it out. Will it put the film in the black? Probably not... That'll probably take a while, though I heard that the DVD and Blu-ray sales have been good for this one. Long live Rise of the Guardians!

Animation, Action and Marketing: A Response

I’ve been checking out a new blog by a fellow Disney fan/blogger named Jim Miles. He has written about Disney and the film industry several times before, but now he has this new blog where he frequently posts articles about the subjects he is interested in, mainly the film industry and the arts. In a piece he wrote back when DreamWorks’ newest release The Croods took in a healthy $43 million on its opening weekend, he offered a few lessons explaining how animation unfortunately has to be marketed in North America and what type of animation adult audiences will respond to.

He compares the box office of the film to DreamWorks’ previous film, the well-made but unfortunately unsuccessful Rise of the Guardians. I’ve dissected the marketing for this film and attempted to figure out why it underperformed, and it mostly boils down to the fact that the marketing department advertised this film as a fairly serious, epic action-packed adventure about the childhood legends such as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Sandman and the Tooth Fairy. The reason he compares the two is because Guardians got better reception than The Croods and it should’ve been a hit since it was holiday-themed and featured images we are all very familiar with.

In the process of finding out why it did poorly in comparison the very successful Croods (which is currently on its way up to $500 million at the worldwide box office), Miles took a look at two action-oriented animated films from the last decade that were mostly marketed as straight action films: Fox's Titan A.E. and Disney's Treasure Planet. Then he gave a few reasons why Guardians and those other films did poorly. The first lesson...

1. While animation appeals to a wide audience, its primary market is either the children’s market or the family market. That’s not to say that adults and teens don’t want to see animation. They love The Lion King and How to Train Your Dragon, but they go to these films to see something that matches their expectation of animation. They go to Spieldberg’s Lincoln to see a serious drama. They go to The Avengers for action. They go to animation for comedy and warm fuzzies.

Animation has been stereotyped as a medium for children first and foremost since the 1960s when kid-oriented Saturday morning cartoons oozed out of every pore in the American television animation industry. At the same time, the theatrical animation studios' product was suited for general audiences as their work had been that way since the Golden Age, which was coming to its end by this time. In the 1970s, you had some adults-only animation doing well here and there, but that would be something of a fad.

What Miles brings up is true, adults nowadays don't expect anything other than a cutesy warm family-friendly romp when it comes to an animated film. This mostly explains why family-friendly animated films rake in the bucks, while ones that are decidedly less "warm and fuzzy" or not family-friendly don't do so well. If Spielberg's Lincoln was an animated film, who knows how it would've done. Audiences today aren't used to other kinds of animated storytelling in theaters because all of the big studios feed them family fare.

Family fare isn't a bad thing, I've explained this many times before. I'm glad that Disney, Pixar and DreamWorks are offering top of the line films for the whole family. Pixar's films in particular pack a punch and never talk down to the audiences, Disney is generally great with this too nowadays while DreamWorks can a bit a hit-or-miss. The other big studios simply follow suit, rather than being bold or trying something risky and new. You'll get something like that once in a while with Paramount's Rango, but risky animation is a no-no for these studios.

In short, Miles is right about most people's expectation of what an animated film should be: G to PG, family-friendly and not really tackling genres that live action films normally do. Who knows how audiences would react to an animated thriller that was similar to Inception, or an animated drama that resembled something like Lincoln or anything of the sort. The way animation is advertised and presented in North America has closed many minds, as many are unaware of what heights the medium can achieve. This leads to the next reason he listed...

2. Action doesn’t sell animation. Ever. Never ever. It never sells animation. Why? Look at Lesson #1. If it looks too dark, parents keep their kids away. And for adults, animation simply isn’t live-action. If you are a 22-year old guy looking to drag his date to a movie she doesn’t want to see, is it going to be the one with animated explosions or the one with live-action-looking explosions?

Adults are fine with live action films that are action-packed, there are many left and right that come out each year. Many action-oriented animated films, however, haven't done so well. The two examples he picks, however, did poorly at the box office for other reasons.

Yes, it's true that Titan A.E. and Treasure Planet were action-packed films in a sea of cutesy comedies or generally non-action packed romps. But both of those films failed because they were marketed as action films... For teenagers. Teenagers are an audience that you should never go for when it comes to marketing animation. Titan A.E.'s box office performance proved to be a cautionary tale for the animation industry, one that executives idiotically ignored. Treasure Planet was no different, as the marketing focused heavily on the spectacle, but not much on Jim Hawkins' personality. Instead the marketing focused on his solar surfing. I saw the trailers when I was roughly 9 years old, even I was unimpressed at the time. 9-year-old me thought Disney was trying too hard to be cool, and that said a lot because I was a huge Disney fan back then. (I never outgrew them, I always knew from the beginning that Disney wasn't "kiddie stuff".)

One animated action film, however, defied all odds... The Incredibles. Now, the film was a big action film, one of the best - animated or not. But how did Disney market this Pixar spectacle? They marketed it with comedy and made it look fun.

The teaser trailer for The Incredibles was prepared for Finding Nemo, over a year and a half away from its theatrical debut. This teaser, like all Pixar teasers, contained footage that was created special for it. Again, this teaser first showed up before Finding Nemo. Finding... Freakin'... Nemo! Finding Nemo pulled in a then-shocked $70 million on its opening weekend back in 2003. That adjusts to $92 million today! Over 56 million people saw the film in theaters in 2003, and they saw this very trailer before the film...

I gotta ask, why did the uploader call it an "Unreleased Trailer"?

Now that's how you do a teaser! Pixar probably knew from the beginning that this wasn't going to be an easy sell, especially since it was coming off of a string of very appealing films with anthropomorphic casts. So what did Disney's marketing machine do? They made it look appealing! I remember this teaser got big laughs in the theater, I remember seeing it before Finding Nemo and before Shrek 2 in May 2004. That film opened with a then-massive $108 million, over 71 million people saw that in the theater.

The next batch of trailers focused on action, but at the same time, they made the film look appealing without making it look "edgy". Plus, the first teaser had already appealed. The problem with the trailers for Titan A.E. and Treasure Planet is that they try to have an attitude, a self-conscious attitude at that. It's like the marketers were simply being told what to do from a focus group... Which was likely the case! I can hear it now, actually: "Teens like explosions! Not cutesy fluff! No cute animals bursting out into song! More action! Rock music! Attitude! Mopey determined protagonists!" Disney's marketing department avoided that for the Incredibles campaign. They aimed for everyone, not teens. Methinks Pixar probably had a hand in that campaign, because it was a good one!

Here we had an animated action film coming out under the Disney name, right after big action flicks and visually amazing superhero films like Spider-Man 2. Oh, and it carried a PG rating as well. The result? A winner! The film took in $70 million on its opening weekend, more than what Titan A.E. and Treasure Planet did in their entire domestic runs put together! You can use action to sell an animated action film, but you have to do it right. Also, Pixar's goodwill helped this film do well. However, if Disney did the same for Treasure Planet, with trailers that focused on the characters and less on "attitude", that could've something of a success as well. I don't know, maybe a gross of over $100 million? Atlantis managed to hit $84 million despite being marketed as a teen-oriented action flick that did not appeal to families.

3. Kids latch on to characters and stories. Studios with successful animated films are good at promoting characters and story. Whether it was Disney promoting John Smith with Pocahontas or Dory in Finding Nemo, trailers and commercials for successful animated films promote characters and story. This is how these films make a connection with young audiences. And if the characters are interesting and charming enough, they connect with an older audience.

This is also very true. A lot of animated films do well because the characters appeal to the family audiences. All of them seem likable from the trailers, rather than the ones from films like Titan A.E. and Treasure Planet. Miles also wonders how Titan A.E. would've done if the marketing focused on the characters and their personalities more, ditto Treasure Planet. What if those films had trailers that made you want to root for these characters long before you purchase the ticket.

Likewise, Rise of the Guardians' trailers didn't really focus on the characters or the more whimsical side of the film. They mostly played up the darkness and action sequences, along with the stuff that would seem "cool" or "awesome". The concept was already a hard sell from the start, the marketing made it even less appealing. Many people wrote the film off as ridiculous, and consequently, a lot of people did not show up on opening weekend. Rise of the Guardians would've easily cleared $150 million at the domestic box office had it opened with more than $40 million. The Croods just passed that threshold thanks to that opening plus the film's built-in appeal.

It seems that Blue Sky's upcoming Epic may not go over well either. Like Guardians and the other films (ironically, it's based on a book by William Joyce, who also wrote the books Guardians is based on), it looks like it's heavy on action and thrills, but there's not much on the characters themselves or anything else. Two of the main protagonists are teens, the others seem distant. The marketing is using Aziz Ansari's annoying hip-talking slug to help the picture appeal to kids and teens, but it's sure to make adults roll their eyes. That schtick got annoying back in the 1990s. Disney Animation's upcoming Big Hero 6 is a big action superhero film with teenaged protagonists... That'll certainly be a test for them, but if they go the Incredibles route with it, they can have a hit on their hands. How Epic will do at this rate is unpredictable, as the marketing has been selling it as a teen-oriented film. It have a feeling it may backfire on Blue Sky and Fox, but if it goes over badly, it may be another example of why you can't market animation for teenagers or as shallow action-heavy films.

4. These ad campaigns make a go for the teenaged and adult movie-going crowd. Adults love animation. But their entry into it is through a child’s eyes. When it comes to adult audiences and animation, they say, “Show me the funny!” Humor is what sells these movies to adults. They come for the humor, but they stay for the emotion (Finding Nemo), the heart (How to Train Your Dragon), and the intellect (The Lion King).

This one goes back to the first lesson, but it is sadly true. Adults and teenagers tend to approach animated films with a sort of "I'm a kid again" attitude. You know it pains me when adults say that they only go to see animated films to please the "kid inside of them" or whatever. They sadly don't see these films as... Well... Films! They see them as diversions, just ways for them to relive their childhood. Of course, animation fans and myself go to see animated films because we know they are films, not mindless kiddie flicks. We know that artists and writers poured their souls into a lot of them. Others, however, don't know this.

This is a good reason why it's hard for adult-oriented animation to take off in America to begin with. While adults have no problem accepting an animated TV show like South Park or something on Adult Swim, they seem to have a hard time accepting a feature-length animated film designed for them. People expect animated films to be cute and humorous, which is why something like an action film or something with a rating higher than PG will have a hard time performing well. A recent example of a non-family animated film doing poorly was Shane Acker's post-apocalyptic 9. With its drab color scheme, its setting and its strange-looking characters, it was not going to be an easy sell. What did the marketers do? They focused on action and very little on the characters themselves. I remember the commercials condescendingly said, "This isn't your little brother's animated film". Yep, Titan A.E. all over again! The film bombed hard at the box office, and sadly, it wasn't a very good film. You won't see films like that too often.

These lessons lead me to ask... How can we make non-family friendly animated films appeal to adults so that they'll go and see them? Good marketing is a start, but what if a new upcoming adult-oriented animated film didn't have much funny stuff? Or heart? Or characters you care about? What if something like a Michael Bay film was animated? It would flop, because the audience for those kinds of films (teens) wouldn't want to see it since it's animated, it has no heart for adult audiences and it's shallow with mindless action. It's okay if a live action film does it, the teens will eat it up! But not an animated one. But what if an adult oriented animated film did have heart? Would the lack of family-friendly cutesy stuff hurt it? Or would it help it?

I've been waiting for the day where an American animation studio will make a smart, engaging adult-oriented animated film. One that gets a PG-13 or R, but one that isn't shallow or for summer blockbuster-craving teenagers. One that's made from the heart, but is strictly for older audiences. Would that do well with good marketing behind it that makes it look good? Maybe, maybe not... But it would be a risk worth taking.

I recommend that you check out Jim Miles' blog, The Back Lot. For his Disney-related tweets, follow his JimonFilm account. What's your take on his article and his lessons for big studios when it comes to marketing animated films? Would you like to see studios at least trying with a legitimately good adult-oriented animated film or a good action-packed animated film?

Sound off below!

A Real Wonder

Yes, I finally got around to seeing this film... I sadly missed out on it when it was playing in theaters though I had really wanted to see it. So what did I end up doing? Well, I decided to "blind buy" this film, knowing I would at least like it if it didn't turn out to be great... Let's just say I'm glad I did so. Rise of the Guardians, I believe, is DreamWorks' best film to date. You read that right, the best DreamWorks film to date...

Rise of the Guardians is easily the studio's most creative film, it's ideas are up there with the imaginative work seen in the Kung Fu Panda films and How To Train Your Dragon. Based on the book series The Guardians of Childhood by William Joyce, Rise of the Guardians tells the story of the legends we believed in growing up and what their objective is after their work is done. The guardians want the children of the world to experience joy and wonder; to believe in these mythical beings. This kind of idea may not sit well and may seem childish, but it's actually pulled off in a very convincing manner.

However, a threat rises against them. Pitch, the Bogeyman, whom they have kept contained many centuries ago, has come back. His plan is to make the children cease believing in the guardians, but to believe in him and fear. With a threat so large, the four guardians recruit a new member... Jack Frost, who is a rather mischievous type who doesn't seem to cooperate at first. The Man on the Moon choses who should be the guardians, and what we find out about the individual guardians' past-lives is briefly looked at though it leaves me wanting to learn more.

Jack Frost can't remember his past, and when it's revealed, it's a very nice twist that ultimately adds some more depth to the story. We learn more about these legends as the film progresses, but they are all very likable characters. Santa is the typical rough on the outside/soft on the inside warrior, and it might seem silly at first but you come to accept what the filmmakers have presented here. The Easter Bunny, named E. Aster Bunnymund, also has a very tough demeanor but he's really a friendly animal at heart. The Tooth Fairy's almost questionable obsession with the teeth that she and her avian fairies collect makes her a humorous character, but the best of the bunch is definitely the Sandman.

I love characters who don't speak or rarely do so. Animation history has many of them, from Dumbo to the robotic cast of WALL-E to Tom and Jerry. Sandy's way of communicating makes for some good laughs, but he's also a very interesting character because he creates virtually anything from sand whether it's a biplane to play around in or actual-sized dinosaurs. The animators come up with very creative ways to show what the character is capable of.

Of course, some might look at a trailer for this and think, "What? Tough versions of our childhood icons? That's goofy!" It may seem that way, but the animators and writers really pulled this idea off. Not once does it ever seem corny or ridiculous. When we see these guardians in action, it's actually quite exciting. The first act makes sure that you don't reject this concept early on, and it doesn't have hard time explaining all the different rules and ins and outs the guardians themselves.

So the idea is great. Is the story overall well-handled? Well, almost...

Rise of the Guardians could've used a little work in this department, because at times, the main storyline got lost thus padding out the film. It isn't a very strong story, but it's one that definitely has its heart in the right place. It has a suitable amount of emotional content, which is what a story like this needed. I really loved the themes, too. The whole idea of how children should have a sense of wonder is what the film champions. Some might think that having children believe in legends like Santa Claus is detrimental to them, while others believe that is in fact a good thing. This film pretty much is in support of the latter argument, but it's never ever heavy-handed. It's sweetly and lightly sprinkled into the film's story.

Another thing that didn't work entirely in the story was Pitch, whose background was a bit vague. He wants to make children fear and cease believing in the guardians because... Well he wants to be believed in alone, he's pretty much envious of what the guardians have. The Man on the Moon chose the guardians to put an end to the Bogeyman's wrath of fear which prevailed during the dark ages. I would've liked to known a little bit more about his origins and how he became to be the Bogeyman... Not a major flaw, but something that could've been covered. That way, he would've been a stronger menace.

Despite some warts, Rise of the Guardians' storyline is pretty good. It's not excellent, it's not without some hiccups and it may not be on par with the best stores in animated films... But it's good. It may not be as consistent as the stories in Kung Fu Panda and How To Train Your Dragon, but it's not ten times worse. I honestly don't get most of the criticisms of the film's story. I think it works fine despite some issues.

Luckily, the creativity and look of the film make up for any flaws in the story alongside the writing. The voice acting and dialogue are the best in any DreamWorks film... There's no hip dialogue or out-of-place modern slang, and all the characters' voices define who they are. Instead of celebrities sounding like they just want the paycheck, the voice actors actually give it their all as the characters. Some of the performances are better than others, but none of them are bad or mediocre by any means. The humor works too, and the writers carefully balance the dramatic moments with the more fun, lighthearted ones.  Humor doesn't come in where it isn't needed. I was shocked to see how well done it was...

The animation is so good in so many ways, the best-looking that DreamWorks has created to date. Everything from the character designs to the background artwork is splendid in every way. So much creativity went into the artwork. The worlds where the different legends live are dazzling to look at, but more mundane settings like the small town of Burgess are also very pretty. Lighting, color and everything else? All handled extremely well. It's a technical marvel, that's for sure.

In all, I think Rise of the Guardians really shows how far DreamWorks has come in terms of storytelling, writing and design. For once, it's a film that isn't too focused on marketability or merchandise. It doesn't try too hard to be a comedy in moments where it shouldn't be, and the writers at least try to make it touching and emotional while also trying on different themes. The films made in the last four years or so demonstrate traces of this, but from where I stand, this film is the best that the studio has made yet.

I hope they continue to make films like this in the future; it's great to see them really branching out after years and years of terribly inconsistent films and stale comedies. The film shows what they are truly capable of in the world of animated storytelling.

Trouble at DreamWorks

The boy on the moon is facing some trouble... Big trouble...

Following the incredibly disappointing news concerning the status on Me and My Shadow, it looks like DreamWorks' is having a rough time.

Their latest film, Rise of the Guardians, was not a huge box office success. While making close to $300 million at the worldwide box office, it only doubled its $145 million budget by a hair. The holiday-themed film was certainly a tricky sell from the beginning, and the marketing tried its hardest. Whatever the case, it didn't appeal to fickle audiences and had to climb to $100 million with the help of word of mouth. Good reviews and audience reception essentially saved it, but it was overall a financial disappointment.

Since Me and My Shadow was also risky, it makes sense that DreamWorks removed it from the release schedule. The film is now back in the development stages, and I must ask - How much of the film was completed before this abrupt move? Was any animation finalized? Since it was scheduled for a spring 2014 release, I'd assume that some of the film was already animated given the teaser image we got months ago.

Now, DreamWorks has moved Mr. Peabody and Sherman from this November to March 7, 2014. This is ironic because Peabody was originally announced as a March 2014 release, with Shadow being the November 2013 release. Now it's the other way around again. Mr. Peabody and Sherman's move was justified by DreamWorks' Chief Marketing Officer Anne Globe to The Hollywood Reporter earlier today. No further adjustments have been made to the 2014 schedule: How To Train Your Dragon 2 and Happy Smekday! are still in place.

With that, The Croods and Turbo are the production company's only releases this year. Both are sure to perform better than Guardians, being much more market-friendly with safer concepts. Rise of the Guardians, now matter how good it may have been, failed to appeal to many moviegoers because many wrote off the concept as ridiculous. Sad to say, but DreamWorks shouldn't really write this title off as a flop in any way. $300 million is still not too shabby.

But Shadow going back into development is nowhere near as bad as what's going to happen with a good portion of DreamWorks Animation's staff. Massive layoffs are coming, reportedly 500+ people will be let go. If this is indeed a reaction to Guardians' box office performance, then that's rather unfair to the talent at the studio. Guardians may not have made Madagascar numbers, but it certainly wasn't a dud. It was slow burner that unfortunately happened to rake up a small total, and who knows how Blu-ray sales will go over. The cover scheme is very Easter-themed, and I assume that the forthcoming ad campaign for the release will be as well. The Blu-ray and DVD sales could very well cover the reported $96 million write-off for the film.

It's also unfair because The Croods and Turbo should make up for it at the box office. Again, they're much safer and won't have a hard time appealing to casual audiences. Guardians didn't have that appeal outside of the animation community and young audiences, sadly.

That all being said, maybe DreamWorks should cut down their release schedule rather than their staff. They miraculously had three films prepared for 2010 - How To Train Your Dragon, Shrek Forever After and Megamind. Would that be able to happen again? Well, obviously not at this rate. If you ask me, DreamWorks has way too much films on their schedule.

Not only are three films hitting theaters next year, but four in 2015: The Penguins of Madagascar, Trolls, B.O.O.: Bureau of Otherworldly Operations and the tentatively titled Mumbai Musical. Can you say "glut"?

Maybe if DreamWorks didn't focus on release dates and more on the story, maybe films like Me and My Shadow wouldn't be canned. It seems to me that the crew were having problems with the story, and with that deadline on their back, they didn't have time to think things through. When working on roughly three films for a 2014 release, there is considerable pressure, especially when their latest work is above average. I think it would be a bit ridiculous to expect the hard-working artists to have something of very good quality be finished alongside two or three other pictures (which are also expected to be of good quality) for release in a certain year.

In short, I think DreamWorks needs to take their time. Stop putting release dates on projects that are only in development, and give them time to grow. That's the Pixar process. That's the Disney process. DreamWorks ought to do the same.

DreamWorks suits also need to look at Guardians from another perspective, it was a massive risk. If Pixar had made that film, it probably would've had no problem at the box office. But from someone other than Pixar, they have to earn an audience. Pixar's is built-in, almost all of their films since Finding Nemo have taken in over $60 million on opening weekend. Their work is spotted by the audience, they can tell if it's Pixar, even in a world where people assume all CGI films are Pixar or Disney. DreamWorks still doesn't have that pull, most of their non-sequel films open below $50 million nowadays.

Sadly, box office is again dictating a company's decisions. That all being said, I wish the best for the people who are being let go. Hopefully all of those talented people will succeed elsewhere...

2012 Animation Box Office Stats

With the year coming to a close, let's take a look at how the animated batch did this year...

~

Dr. Seuss' The Lorax - Easily the most surprising and befuddling animated box office success of the year. Yes, the highest grossing Dr. Seuss film did gross over $200 million (How The Grinch Stole Christmas), but it didn't seem like The Lorax would get anywhere near that amount since it looked derivative from the trailers and turned out to be a very derivative film. Also add in the fact that several animated films in 2011 had unspectacular opening weekends and that the last animated Dr. Seuss adaptation (Horton Hears a Who!) didn't hit $200 million. It was suggested by some that animation was in a bit of a rut in 2011. I just think last year didn't really offer any "must-see" events, or the good stuff was a little too out of reach for audiences (i.e. Rango)

However, I've been thinking now that these kinds of family films are "the thing" now. Meaning, family films that are really more for kids than anything, but ones they drag their unfortunate parents to. I mean, explain why Yogi Bear pulled the ridiculously good multiplier that it did, and why The Smurfs did so well. These kinds of movies are hot at the moment, which is too bad, the good stuff should be making money. Worldwide, it didn't really sail. Horton Hears a Who! was no smash worldwide either, so this gross was expected, even with the film being in 3D and IMAX 3D. It made a nice $348 million worldwide. It cost almost nothing for Illumination, so it's a big success for them and everyone else involved.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits - Time and time again, I find myself wondering why stop-motion animation films have such a difficult time at the American box office. Sometimes I blame inept marketing, other times I believe it's because the subject matter in some of the films isn't really mainstream or conventional. The Pirates! Band of Misfits, I believe, suffered from both. Though I analyzed the overall box office performance earlier this year, I thought I'd address this point as well.

To a casual American moviegoer, The Pirates! would look undesirable, even if Columbia didn't market it the way they did. Not just because it's stop-motion, but because it comes off as a weird pirate film and American audiences are not truly accustomed to the animation medium to begin with. After the big budget spectacle of the Pirates of the Caribbean films, who would want to see this kind of film? Outside of us animation fans and those who are knowledgable about Aardman and the book series, no one would really. Of course, in a world where tons of adults shun animation, you really need to have something in your animated film that will interest adults from the get-go. The Pirates! really had no chance, being from a studio that makes quirky animated films that just don't seem to catch on here in America.

Of course, the folks at Aardman's home country were charitable. The Pirates! was a hit in the UK, and it did well enough all around the world. It did double its minimal budget of $55 million, so it's a moderate success for the studio. It certainly did better (profit-wise) than their last feature, Arthur Christmas. The optimist in me, however, hoped that the film would've made more dough in the states. Releasing this (a 3D film no less) right before The Avengers was an incredibly stupid move from Columbia. If released earlier in the month, it could've had time to get good legs and make more than the paltry $31 million it ended up making. Stop-motion really needs to take off in the domestic market.

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - Given the dwindling opening weekend totals of the DreamWorks films and the lackluster reception Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa got from audiences, I was expecting this to open with a very low total (in the $30 million range), but I guess all that colorful pizazz and singing zebra action really got people hyped for the film. Opening with $60 million, it had very good word of mouth and became the series' highest-grossing installment. Good thing too, for I believe it is the best of the series and a good film overall.

The film also broke $200 million, ensuring us animation fans that the $200 million benchmark would be reached more than once after a year where no feature did so. Over $700 million worldwide? DreamWorks certainly played their cards right with this film, and it was a much-needed super-hit for them.

Brave - I was certain that this would cross $200 million, and it did. Cars 2 only missed it by a hair, so I felt Brave would have no problem clearing that. Plus with the reception it got, it was bound to happen. It opened well (Over $60 million is the usual for a Pixar film) and had very good word of mouth, though it was more on the level of WALL-E than something like Ratatouille or Up. That being said, it is currently this year's highest grossing animated film domestically and will most likely keep that title.

Worldwide... What happened? I was thinking that this kind of fantasy film (not to mention 3D) would do Up numbers (i.e. over $400 million) overseas. Guess I was dead wrong. After all, How to Train Your Dragon grossed around the same amount. Over $500 million is good for any animated film, but it's not a monstrous total. But again, it's a big success for Pixar, once again.

Ice Age: Continental Drift - Looking at Shrek Forever After and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, I knew this fourth installment in the series would dip and make the lowest total in the franchise domestically. It sure did, but $161 million is still good enough for Blue Sky. Worldwide, it exploded. We all saw that one coming. $875 million. Biggest animated film at the box office this year, and one of the biggest of all time. Are you not surprised?

ParaNorman - Like Coraline and other stop-motion films, ParaNorman only opened with a small amount. Word of mouth seemed to be great, the film pulled a 3.9x multiplier, the biggest this year so far for animated film. Again, another masterful stop-motion film has underperformed overall. Worldwide? It didn't make much of a mark, sadly. With $99 million overall, it looks like ParaNorman isn't much of a success. It didn't double its $60 million budget. Shame, but Laika will prevail.

Hotel Transylvania - Unlike the two other spooky-themed animated films released this year, Hotel Transylvania was certainly very mainstream and accessible. ParaNorman and Frankenweenie were not mainstream and are overall films that aren't entirely suitable for an audience that wants a specific kind of animated film presented to them (unless it's Pixar making the film). This on the other hand was perfect for casual moviegoers with its star-studded cast, appealing animation and funny jokes. Yes, it's been made clear many times: American audiences would rather see an animated film like this, and not something truly creative or daring like ParaNorman.

It is currently Sony Pictures Animation's biggest film domestically with $143 million and a healthy $308 million take worldwide. The budget? Only $85 million. Again, Sony Animation knows how to make a profit much like Blue Sky and Illumination.

Frankenweenie - Despite some pushy marketing from Disney, this Tim Burton stop-motion critical darling just couldn't do it. It opened low like every other stop-motion film and crept its way up to the mid-$30 million range. Its current worldwide total is $66 million, but that isn't enough to double the $39 million budget. It opens in a few more territories in the next few weeks, so who knows at this rate. Again, another stop-motion film has underperformed.

Wreck-It Ralph - Opening with a strong $49 million (though I had hoped it would've opened with more, but Hurricane Sandy affected the box office somewhat), Wreck-It Ralph was on its way to really wreck the box office. It has done very well so far, it's looking like it'll end up somewhere around $180-$190 million. How come it will fall short of $200 million? With the buzz it has been getting, why won't in reach it? How come it couldn't outgross Tangled?

The final worldwide total is too early to tell, since other countries haven't gotten the film yet (the latest arrival will be in Japan, in March). It's not really making a stir in most countries, but it's got the chance to add a good $200 million overseas and help the great Walt Disney Animation Studios film crack $400 million worldwide. With a $165 million budget, Disney will have a success on their hands if it makes that much. It should, a lot of effort went into it and it better get what it deserves.

Rise of the Guardians - What happened? Well, I looked into it and it seemed like another case where it was a combination of bad things. However, Rise of the Guardians has scored some impressive legs and word of mouth. It should at least hit $100 million by the time it is out of theaters here in the states. Worldwide, it's doing steadily but not spectacularly. Around $300 million seems to be the final amount for this film, which is good but not as much as DreamWorks' films usually do worldwide. It's no flop, but it's no big success.

~

Overall, this was certainly a better year than last year. It wasn't, however, an excellent year like 2009 or 2010. Three films hit $200 million stateside, proving that feature animation can still thrive with mass audiences despite a rather dry year behind it. But it wasn't without disappointments: Rise of the Guardians underperforming was certainly a shock to the animation community, and while it was expected, it was still a bit discouraging to see ParaNorman, Frankenweenie and The Pirates! not doing too well. I was hoping for some sort of stop-motion revolution this year since Coraline was able to do well enough three years back, but alas it did not happen.

Another thing that irks me is that something so obviously commercial like The Lorax could open so high ($70 million) and easily coast to $200 million stateside. Brave did the usual for a Pixar film, though I was hoping it would perform like Up, but this didn't earn the very strong word of mouth that film got. Worldwide, it did well but it was no titan. I guess that was going to happen, like I said earlier. Madagascar 3's success, I felt was deserved, since it was a quality film. I'd take a "good" loud/busy/obnoxious movie over a bad one. Nothing wrong with a busy, chaotic animated film done right. Ice Age's performance, I'm happy with, it shows that people are slowly getting tired of the franchise here in the states. While I'm happy to see Wreck-It Ralph doing well, I was hoping it would crush Brave at the box office being the year's best. Oh well...

What box office performance surprised you this year? What did you predict for these films? Did they match your predictions? Sound off!

Why Didn't "Guardians" Rise?

Before anything, it's too early to write Rise of the Guardians off entirely. It still has the Christmas weekend and subsequent weekends to give it a healthy boost plus there is no big family-friendly competition after the 3D re-release of Monsters, Inc. (which shouldn't even hurt it anyway). Word of mouth is certainly helping it too, as possibly getting $100 million off of a $23 million opening weekend is no small feat. Think of Bolt and The Princess and the Frog, two films that opened with a similar amount and got past $100 million despite all odds. While the final total may be a disappointment, one must consider the legs. I always thought they spoke greater words than the numbers.

But the big question is, what really happened with this film? DreamWorks Animation films are guaranteed hits each time out, and it's been this way for a long while thanks to films that are noticeably superior to most of the films they released prior to Kung Fu Panda. Their films usually open with at least $40 million on opening weekend, though Puss in Boots was an exception due to the fact that audiences were pretty much burnt out on anything Shrek-related and the fact that it looked unspectacular from the marketing.

Rise of the Guardians seemed like it would be another smash hit for DreamWorks at first. The teaser trailer showed that the film was definitely not like their earlier stuff, with the absence of goofiness, lame jokes and half-hearted ways to get kids interested. Nothing similar to silly singing polka-dot zebras with afros to be seen. The trailer was attached to many successful animated family films, most notably DreamWorks' own Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted, which was their biggest domestic hit in two years.

Many have suggested that the trailers themselves failed to sell a premise that was apparently difficult to take seriously or accept. Of course, I wouldn't write it off since it comes from an animation studio I generally trust. I do remember being skeptical when reading the plot description, and thinking to myself, "DreamWorks better not make this stupid with lowbrow humor and hip jokes." I saw images, some early descriptions... I was a bit intrigued. I guess I am biased, an animation fan such as myself can't speak for everyone else.

Rise of the Guardians was written off before it hit theaters. People saw it as "The Avengers - Childhood Heroes Edition", even the consensus summary on Rotten Tomatoes goes along with this. I can see why. Early posters and banners showed all the characters with taglines such as "Legends Unite". The second trailer had action sequences that made them come off as action heroes, "badass" updates of the legends we grew up with. I could see why the look of this film would strike someone as preposterous.

Again, as an animation fan, I knew that it was based on books by William Joyce and it was from a good studio. Do others know that? Many people still can't tell whether it's Pixar or Disney or DreamWorks or whatever. Even if they have seen the film or trailers saying "From the creators of...", they still don't notice. Most viewers probably don't give it a second thought, most computer animated films look the same to them since they dominate the market. Understandable, I know several people who aren't big on animation who confuse the output of the different studios all the time... Even after they have seen the films!

So to audiences, this looked like Avengers with Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the Sandman. Of course that's out of DreamWorks' control, it's just a coincidence that Disney happened to release The Avengers in May. At one time, Rise of the Guardians was actually scheduled for a November 2011 release. Had it come out then, things could've been different for this film's box office.

My question to the marketing team at Paramount is: Why make it come off as an Avengers-type film? It's obvious that The Avengers did so well for a very good reason, so why try to advertise a film like this like a big action picture? This was Paramount's final DreamWorks release, so why not go out with a bang?

It's hard to market animated films as serious films in North America, and it shows, a lot of marketing departments go for the worst possible campaigns that focus on jokes, gags and very little on the emotional content or the story. Once in a while, American marketing for animation gets it right with trailers that somewhat balance the humor and the story. Pixar's trailers are a good example, even though most of them are still pretty bad. Still, it's why they secure an opening weekend gross of over $60 million.

Rise of the Guardians came off as a fairly serious film with lots of beautiful visuals and action. There were a few jokes here and there, but it wasn't like other trailers where they feel forced to make the kids in the audience guffaw. I liked the trailers for what they were, but they tried too hard to make these characters seem like action heroes. Why not focus on the characters' personalities themselves and not them in action? I think that would be more appealing, plus they could save the action for the last part of the trailers.



Using action and an epic tone would've worked for another animated film, such as Brave, whose third trailer had that kind of tone alongside more focus on the story. Rise of the Guardians was tricky because its concept alone would be rejected if you told someone about it. A lot of people just found it to be incredibly silly. Those trailers didn't help, making it seem even sillier. But what other route could the marketing go for? Perhaps the more whimsical side of the story, focusing on the characters and the magical elements, then use action at the end when it was probably needed.

One last problem was the title itself. The title sounds like a superhero film wannabe. Why did they change the title? The Guardians of Childhood was a much better title (the title of the books as well) that pretty much summed up the entire concept. Rise of the Guardians as a film title is not only vague, but it gives a different vibe... Why will they rise? To audiences, it rings too similar to Rise of the Planet of the Apes and The Dark Knight Rises, so they may see it as a cheap "kiddie" imitation of those films. Others confused it with Animal Logic's Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, another poorly titled animated film that did poorly at the box office. This alone should've proven to Paramount and DreamWorks that vague titles don't always work. What are they "guardians" of? Like anyone is going to pay attention to subtitle like The Owls of Ga'Hoole. The Guardians of Childhood was the better title.

Sadly, DreamWorks' executives may view this film as a flop. It cost $145 million to produce, the typical amount for one of their films, and it's going to miss that domestically. Worldwide, it isn't doing significantly better, though it should double the budget by the end of its run. From the beginning, it was not going to be as big as Madagascar 3, but by all means it should've grossed around the same amount of something like a Blue Sky film.

Now I think I know why DreamWorks is using such an aggressive Oscar campaign for this film (even pushing it for Best Picture)... They're trying hard to get audiences to go see it before Oscar season to boost it. They don't want people to forget it. Good intentions, but will that work? Word of mouth is certainly good, the film was at #2 for two weeks in a row after opening lower. It may stay in the Top 5 once the heavies drop off the charts, though The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is giving family audiences their holiday fix. It may be curtains for this well-received, quality-made DreamWorks film.

It's just not good because DreamWorks' output is better than it used to be, and it should be faring better. I'm not necessarily worried about DreamWorks' executives turning around and saying, "Audiences don't like serious films from us! Let's go back to goofy comedies!" How To Train Your Dragon is their best-received film and was a big hit domestically, outgrossing all of their non-sequel/Shrek films. Kung Fu Panda 2 and Puss in Boots were saved by big international grosses. Megamind, despite getting mixed-to-positive reception, did well enough.

Still, the low amount this film will make stateside will not look good. This is even less than Bee Movie, and if it misses $100 million, it'll be their first non-Aardman film to miss that mark since Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas in 2003. You know, that poorly-received hand-drawn film that notoriously sunk? Also consider 3D ticket prices and attendance... Not good.

I'm just hoping that this doesn't shatter DreamWorks' hopes in risky projects and creative ideas. This film didn't underperform because of the quality, it's actually getting legs because of its strengths. It's successfully appealing to family audiences and slowly getting everyone else interested. The Oscar campaign may help it too. No, quality had nothing to do with it. This film underperformed because it was once again a combination of things: Bad timing (way too much family-friendly, 3D competition), poor title, misguided marketing and no real push to get a real wide audience to show up on opening weekend.

Will 20th Century Fox get it right with a future DreamWorks film that's similar to this in tone?

What is your take on this? Why do you think this film opened poorly? Why do you think it isn't doing so well? Sound off!

"Ralph" Holds On, "Guardians" Disappoints

It looks as if one animated film was able to soar this past weekend, while another one didn't do the same...

Thanksgiving weekend is normally a lucrative time for box office, but this weekend in particular was massive thanks to big blockbusters with good word of mouth like Skyfall, but this weekend also worked in Wreck-It Ralph's favor. Disney's current animated champion is now sitting at $149 million at the domestic box office, and it's only going to go higher thanks to the very positive buzz (that it rightfully deserves) it's getting. Wreck-It Ralph was also able to hold its ground against Life of Pi and Rise of the Guardians, both 3D and marketed to the family audience. Life of Pi however was mis-marketed, a film that I can't see as something appealing to family audiences. It still opened well for a film in the league. (And yes, I saw the film, I thought it was stunning.)

DreamWorks' Rise of the Guardians on the other hand didn't exactly rise. The film only opened with $23 million over the three-day weekend and it didn't get much of a boost from its Wednesday opening either. I was hoping that this film would be a big success for DreamWorks since their output has been consistently (for the most part) good for a while, plus the critical reception for this film was mostly positive. So what happened?

From what I gathered from all the pre-release buzz, the film most likely opened poorly because the concept just didn't appeal despite the fact that the trailers did a decent job at making these childhood heroes seem like something to take a bit seriously. To others, it looked too silly. Left and right, people were deemed the concept ridiculous and that it would have a hard time appealing, even to children. Maybe I'm just biased, but I'm surprised that the visuals, the funny bits in the commercials and the spectacle didn't work with audiences.

This opening means that word of mouth is definitely going to save this one, perhaps the way it saved other films that didn't make much on their opening weekends. A How to Train Your Dragon-sized multiplier is out of the question since that film had no family-friendly or animated competition in its way for a while. Rise of the Guardians will have to duke it out with Wreck-It Ralph, Life of Pi, the 3D re-release of Monsters, Inc. and The Hobbit. Can it make it to $100 million domestically? I think it can, what do you think?

What's your take on this weekend box office results?

The Second Half of 2012: A Closer Look

Halfway through the year, we have gotten four animated films: Dr. Seuss' The Lorax, The Pirates! Band of Misfits, Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted and Brave. Brave was pure Pixar brilliance once again with fantastic visuals and a heartfelt emotional core, whereas Dr. Seuss' The Lorax was more of a kid-pleasing romp (albeit with some funny bits and colorful animation) with a rote environmental message. Madagascar 3, which I have yet to see believe it or not, was called the best in the series and another good film in DreamWorks' recent line-up. The Pirates! was more inventive quirkiness from Aardman.

So, what's next?

Here we are, halfway through this year. We have less features than last year, which is for the better, and not too many low quality films spamming up the market. The second half of the year, however, brings six more animated features. Based on the trailers, promos and stills that we've gotten over the months, I'm going to analyze what we are getting this year which might be another strong year for the medium.

Ice Age: Continental Drift opens four days from now. From what I’ve gathered, this film looks like it isn’t ashamed of being of a cash grab. While it does aim to look like a fun entertaining romp for the family (I didn’t mind the most recent trailer), it’s just that the adventures of these prehistoric characters aren’t cutting it anymore. I got a Pirates of the Caribbean vibe from some of the scenes, since those films explode overseas. Combine Ice Age, which is already huge around the world with Pirates, and you get this. Blue Sky will probably take home more than a one billion dollars, but it’s so obvious that this was cobbled together to give foreign audiences what they want. Pirates and Ice Age, sounds like a marketing pitch.

However, the point of this series now is just an easy way for Blue Sky to get the dough to make films like Epic, which comes out next spring, which looks like a much more ambitious film than anything they've made. That said, will they make another Ice Age? Who knows...

This year, we are also getting a trio of Halloween-themed films. The first of which is Laika’s ParaNorman. Laika entered the animation scene with Henry Selick’s fantastic Coraline. It was a beautiful film that of course drew inspiration from the Nightmare Before Christmas book while also being a colorful, surreal endeavor on its own. Its use of 3D was quite something for its time (imagine that, 3D being good, before the onslaught of terrible post-conversion films) and the story was very strong.

ParaNorman looks a bit similar, as the plot involves zombies and ghouls. While I am certainly looking forward to this film, I do think that some of these studios tend to go for the Halloween theme a little too often. Tim Burton knocked it out of the park early on with The Nightmare Before Christmas and other works like Vincent. I don’t want to compare these films to Burton’s masterpiece, because it’s unfair. I just can’t help but notice that the Halloween theme is often used for animated feature films.

ParaNorman, however, looks pretty imaginative. The trailers apparently don’t give us a good idea of what this film is like, instead opting for constant jokes and editing that makes your head spin. I love the designs of the characters and sets, they are very jagged and unique. Everything is delightfully asymmetrical. The movements are very smooth too. Most of the humor surrounding the creatures is good, everything else? Not so much. I couldn’t help but also think that Norman’s everyday life seemed a bit cliche, with the dialogue and how the bullies treat him and such. I'm also not too sure what I think of the film having the adults being fools, since that's another trope that tends to get tiresome as we've seen it before in television cartoons many times. Hopefully I’ll be proven wrong.

Sony Pictures Animation will serve up Hotel Transylvania after that, which was directed by Genndy Tartakovsky. The recent trailer pretty much tells us that this will be a fun treat. The humor isn’t as hit-and-miss as one might think, as I myself found myself cracking up during the trailer. Dracula (voiced by Adam Sandler) is going to be a hoot. Early on, when I saw that this would have a star-studded cast, I wasn’t enthusiastic. The first trailer appeared, I was disappointed, but not surprised at the same time. With this trailer, I’m more interested. Adam Sandler basically parodies the “I vant to suck your blood” voice, but it’s hilarious when you actually hear it.

Dracula builds Hotel Transylvania to keep his daughter Mavis (voiced by Selena Gomez) and other monsters safe from humans. The monsters fear humans (which reminds me of Monsters, Inc.), but it’s all played for laughs. All goes wrong when a human finds the hotel and falls in love with Mavis. That said human, named ---- (voiced by Andy Samberg), seems rather obnoxious. He has a laid-back “hey man” attitude, but he seems all too talkative for my tastes.

What shines is the animation. It’s got a fun, somewhat colorful look that affectionately pokes fun at the Halloween monsters we all know (DreamWorks’ Rise of the Guardians could be interpreted as the anti-thesis of this film). Other than that, the film looks like fun.

The last of the Halloween-themed films is from Tim Burton himself, Frankenweenie, a re-imagining of his 1984 short film of the same name. From the trailers, it’s clear that he definitely expanded the story (we see a dinosaur in the final seconds). Visually, it’s pretty much him doing another Nightmare-style film. At the same time, however, I think more of Vincent, his brilliant 1982 short film.

The decision to shoot it in black and white certainly adds to it, reminding me of the 1930s monster classics. What really makes it for me, though, is the emotional content. When we see the scenes of the deceased Sparky and Victor trying to revive him, they draw an emotional response. They’re quiet and effective, so I can imagine them being tearjerkers in the finished film. However, things seem a bit giddy after said dog is resurrected.

Of course, knowing Disney’s marketing, the story won’t be as chaotic as the trailers make them out to be, but you never know. Frankenweenie looks like a good ride at the theaters. Out of the three Halloween-themed films, it doesn’t interest me as much as ParaNorman, but the writing is less gabby than Hotel Transylvania’s.

This trio of treats are still on my “most anticipated” list. From what’s been revealed, they look like they have strengths and weaknesses. ParaNorman has the best style, but the writing isn’t catching my interest despite some very imaginative visuals. Frankenweenie looks like typical Tim Burton, but the writing is a bit stronger. Hotel Transylvania looks like fun, nothing more. That said, I’m looking forward to all of them.

In November, we'll be getting two films from Walt Disney Animation Studios and DreamWorks Animation. Both of which excite me the most: Wreck-It Ralph and Rise of the Guardians.

Disney’s Wreck-It Ralph comes on like Despicable Me and Megamind in a video game setting. At first, it may seem like Disney is trying to use the same magic trick. Not likely. Something about it already seems unique on the surface, not because it’s a Walt Disney Animation Studios film, but rather an experience that you’ll remember for years. Despicable Me, by all accounts, is a very fun film. I personally love it, but it’s really nothing more than a fun crowd pleaser.

It’s got some heart, yes. The characters are very likable, yes. That’s about it, though. It’s like a live action comedy film, it’s really funny and enjoyable to watch, but that’s about it. It has some cartoony antics that couldn’t be done in live action, as it adds to the goofiness of the whole film. Nothing wrong with that, but Wreck-It Ralph looks like something a bit beyond that. The idea has been in the works for a while, but I have no clue when the writers ever decided to make the story about a bad guy trying to be a good guy. Even if they did after seeing Despicable Me, it shouldn’t matter, as long it’s pulled off right.

As for Megamind comparisons, Megamind was already compared to Despicable Me before it hit theaters since Megamind himself tries to be the hero for a change. It’s executed differently, but Megamind also lacked a punch. There wasn’t much heart or appeal, it just felt like a mindless comedy that didn’t know whether it wanted to be an all-out spoof of the superhero genre or an intriguing story about a bored supervillain with an identity crisis.

Ralph’s (who is voiced by John C. Reilly) quest to become a hero will probably be born out of a desire he’s had his whole life, being assigned to be the bad guy. In the trailer, it is implied that he is aware of people not liking him for his job. “It sure must feel great to be the good guy...” he quietly says at the “Bad-Anon” meeting. There’s already more emotion there than what I saw in the other two films. Knowing the Disney tradition of adding heart to a story, even a non-serious one (think The Emperor's New Groove), it’s possible that there will be more meat to this entire story than in those two similar films.

So what’s the best thing he could do? Go to another video game and be the hero for once, but what he does ultimately causes disaster for the entire arcade (a family fun center called “Litwak’s”). The trailer doesn’t show us what he could’ve possibly unleashed, though it could be the “Cy-bugs”, the robotic bug-like enemies he encounters in the game Hero's Duty. Since Wreck-It Ralph is a story that involves multiple video game worlds (Ralph’s own game Fix-It Felix, Jr., Hero's Duty and Sugar Rush), I was wondering how Disney would pull that off. The recent Disney animated features have scenes where the animation and art are a radical departure from the look of the rest of the films. In The Princess and the Frog, it was for the magnificent “Almost There” scene, where Tiana sings about her dreams of owning a restaurant. It’s all told through an Art Deco style that is very reminiscent of the Harlem Renaissance artwork. That’s just one of many great examples.

From the trailer, it looks like all the worlds will be done in computer animation. However, from a color and lighting standpoint, they are all unique. Fix-It Felix, Jr. is minimal in its design, with people who look like Little People-esque toys. Since it’s from the early 1980s, it would look like that. Hero's Duty on the other hand is more akin to Halo, Gears of War and most of today’s video games. It’s very realistic with lots of details. The lead character from that world, the no-nonsense Sergeant Calhoun (voiced by Jane Lynch) doesn’t look like a character you’d see in a Disney or Pixar film. She’s not overtly caricatured or anything, she looks like something you’d see in today’s games.

Sugar Rush on the other hand is more like a Nintendo game. It’s detailed much like Hero's Duty but it’s very colorful, bright and fun to look at. It’s basically Candy Land meets Mario Kart. It’s certainly creative, as the set designers had a field day designing forests and mountains out of candies while still trying to make it look fresh and original. The character designs here are less lifelike than the ones seen in Hero's Duty. Weird shapes and cute designs, all based off of sweets. Aside from Candy Land, the setting also reminds me of a Sega Dreamcast game called Pen Pen TriIcelon, a quirky kid-oriented game which had a level made of candies and sweets. Some may remember that title, some may not.

As for the arcade itself, everything is connected through Game Central Station, which is located inside the arcade’s power strip. I went over the details there before, like how the portals to others games are the insides of the electrical sockets (look closely and it says “Moore USA”, a reference to director Rich Moore). We’ve seen a good deal of that, but this brings up an interesting question: What about other arcades? What about other Fix-It Felix, Jr. machines across the world? Imagine a joke in the film where Ralph actually meets another Ralph. That could be the source for a ton of good jokes, since this is supposed to be a comedy adventure.

What about Fix-It Felix himself? The trailers show that he does care about Ralph, but we don’t see much of him. We don’t even see the game itself, just what it looks like to the player in the arcade (The details on the game cabinet are spot-on). We get brief glimpses of the interior of the arcade (look for a Pac-Man machine, to the left of Fix-It Felix, Jr.), which looks like your typical amusement center.

As for music, who knows what kind of score this will have. Henry Pryce Jackman is composing it, but what intrigues me about him is that he actually worked with Mike Oldfield, the man behind the legendary Tubular Bells album. Not to say I'm thinking this film will have a soundtrack like that, but I am hoping for one that weaves 8-bit sound effects into the typical lush Disney-esque score. Perhaps the score will change radically to suit the different video game environments, such as Hero's Duty having a more epic, perhaps electronic action film tone (a la Tron: Legacy) while Sugar Rush can be a bit on the whimsical side. The trailer gives us no hint of what this film will sound like, since it prefers to assault our ears with Flo-Rida.

So from an adventure comedy that’s a love letter to fans of classic video games (like myself), what can we expect from the dialogue? Luckily none of it is cringeworthy. First off, the cameos. This is the most talked about part of the trailer, and it seems as if this trailer has been getting very good reception. This bodes very well for Disney, who spent several years struggling to interest audiences due to several setbacks. Potential critical and commercial performance aside, Wreck-It Ralph seems like its jokes are not going to misfire. Those who have seen the film (which is of course a work-in-progress version), such as the minds behind the brilliant animation podcast The Rotoscopers, have confirmed that the humor does indeed work. Rich Moore, having directed several episodes of The Simpsons and Futurama (which coincidentally had a “what-if” episode where life was like a video game), probably littered the film with clever jokes, along with scribes Jennifer Lee and Phil Johnston.

Will all that said, Wreck-It Ralph looks like a game changer (no pun intended) for Walt Disney Animation Studios, as I’ve said many times before. I was always looking forward to this one, and the trailer only made me more excited.

An equally interesting and colorful film, Rise of the Guardians, looks like it'll be a new kind of film for DreamWorks. When DreamWorks announced that they were going to tackle William Joyce’s The Guardians of Childhood for an animated feature, I didn’t know what to think. Having been skeptical of DreamWorks’ output up until I saw How To Train Your Dragon for the first time on Blu-ray in October 2010 (which motivated me to check out their recent crop), I was expecting it to be another one I’d reject.

Having seen How to Train Your Dragon and not everything else around it at the time of the first trailer’s premiere earlier this year, I was surprised. For the first time, it was a trailer for a DreamWorks film that actually impressed me. The mood was great, it was all about the lovely visuals, the characters and surprisingly, no annoying jokes. I knew that DreamWorks was now serious about stepping up their game, the likes of Kung Fu Panda and How to Train Your Dragon were only the beginning.

Rise of the Guardians (which is not a good title, The Guardians of Childhood is much more interesting and intriguing) is about the fictional heroes of childhood that we looked up to once in our lives: Santa Claus, the Sandman, the Easter Bunny and Jack Frost. Now when I read this synopsis for the first time, I was only imagining how these characters would look. Being based on William Joyce characters, their designs could not be predicted. At least they weren’t going to look like their other characters.

... And they didn’t! Santa Claus is redesigned to look more like a tough guy but with a warm heart. Alec Baldwin gives him a pseudo-Russian accent that’s a little bit too hard to get behind, though it shouldn’t be much of an issue. They’re trying to keep him as far away from a jolly man going “Ho ho ho!” as possible. His workshop isn’t your typical Santa’s workshop, but then again, Aardman’s Arthur Christmas presented an interesting take on Santa’s workshop, though the character designs were much more traditional. In addition to being with a band of elves, he also has these strange fuzzy bipedal creatures. His workshop is high up on an icy mountain, but there’s a lot of imagination put into the building’s exterior. His sled? Not so conventional either.

The other childhood heroes come off as characters you’d see in an epic fantasy saga, and their designs are all very creative. The Sandman comes off as silly-looking gnome-like man. His trails of sand are like pixie dust. The world he comes from looks like a magical version of the Sahara. He will be a mute character who can apparently create things out of sand, such as a toy-like biplane that he uses to fly around. E. Aster Bunnymund, the Easter Bunny (voiced by Hugh Jackman), has the most interesting design. Jack Frost even mistakes him for a kangaroo in the latest trailer. He isn’t presented as a friendly-looking bunny, cutesy or anything of the sort. In fact, he looks like he means business. I like it! His world is a bright, colorful forest with Easter eggs that can walk. Last but not least is Tooth, the Tooth Fairy (voiced by Isla Fisher), whose design is very colorful and coated in feathers. Her world is full of hummingbird-like creatures, but the rest of it isn’t clear. It looks like an enchanted forest from her character poster and some shots in the trailers, but we see an opulent castle in the new trailer, so that could be a part of her world.

The main protagonist of the film is Jack Frost (voiced by Chris Pine), who is from our world of course. He’s a mischievous teenaged boy who causes trouble with a magical scepter that freezes things. How he got it? Who knows. With that, he is chosen to team up with the guardians, as established in the latest trailer. Not much to say about him or his design. It’s fine, but he isn’t necessarily interesting. Perhaps over the course of the film, he’ll mature.

The worlds of the guardians are stunning, some of the finest you’ll see in a computer animated film today. DreamWorks’ animators knew that presenting these worlds would require a load of imagination, especially since countless other interpretations are rather basic and lack the magic seen in this film. Our childhood heroes go from what we know to something truly imaginative and breathtaking. It shows what you can do with this kind of story in the animation medium.

For many years, DreamWorks’ animation quality was always compared negatively to that of Pixar’s. Earlier, their style was simply competent. The crew weren’t aiming for visual thrills in fare like Shark Tale, Madagascar and Bee Movie. Shrek had some imagination, while its first two sequels were truly lacking in that area. Rise of the Guardians is DreamWorks unleashing all of that potential they had in the last six years. Comparing Pixar and DreamWorks negatively was never a good thing, but with this film’s look, it should rightfully be positively compared to the visually dazzling works of Pixar’s.

At the same time, Rise of the Guardians’ story seems to be right in line with a Pixar film. There’s characters you already like, an interesting execution of the good vs. evil story, and heart. The story is to involve a young girl who ceases to believe in the guardians, so it’s possible that the story will be very heartfelt. I definitely got this vibe from both trailers, but both trailers actually seem more fantasy adventure-oriented than anything. Comedy is (rightfully) downplayed in both, but heart is too. I’m not saying it won’t be heartfelt, it probably will be. Most trailers for Pixar’s films hide the heartfelt side of the story and go for haywire editing and pacing (with some exceptions of course, mainly BRAVE’s wonderful “Family Legends” trailer). Again, the film might possibly be a tearjerker since How to Train Your Dragon attempted to be one.

Aside from comedy and heart, this looks like DreamWorks’ darkest film to date. I never thought I’d put the two in the same sentence, given the unabashed comic nature of their older films. Kung Fu Panda had sheds of this, and so did How to Train Your Dragon. Kung Fu Panda 2 had some wonderfully dramatic scenes that were fairly dark. Rise of the Guardians goes all out due to its villain Pitch (Jude Law), the Bogeyman. I initially didn’t like the design as seen on his character poster, but in the trailers? Never mind...

Depicted as a tall, thin, dark and revolting figure, his world looks like a total nightmare. It’s a bleak and creepy medieval-like world, with empty cages everywhere. (For who?) He wants to bring total darkness to the world and ruin the dreams of children forever. Wow... DreamWorks had a convincing villain with Lord Shen in Kung Fu Panda 2, but he ultimately fell victim to some villain cliches. Pitch doesn’t seem to. He’ll be one that’ll probably scare young children. Pixar and Disney were never afraid of this, as Disney villains have always frightened the younger set. Pitch looks like he can match up to those villains, as he doesn’t come off as the typical baddie: Hammy, over-the-top and comedic. In the trailers, we see him travel by the means of dark, shadowy horses. His voice is also very creepy and menacing. I think we have a great villain with this one.

Rise of the Guardians will kick off a new chapter for DreamWorks Animation, it'll show that the studio has more to it than silly comedies with childish humor. In the same month, Disney will widen their scope with their action-oriented Wreck-It Ralph while also preparing for an oncoming new Renaissance. Both of these November releases are my top picks for the year, now that Brave has come out. To see these two other studios trying to expand the medium in the world of computer animation (I didn’t call them the “Big Three” for nothing) is quite thrilling. The Third Golden Age has only gotten more exciting.