DreamWorks has quite a lot of confidence in their upcoming Netflix series Turbo F.A.S.T., which is based on their unfortunate underperformer from this past summer, Turbo. The traditionally-animated series - a DreamWorks and Titmouse co-production - is set to arrive on Christmas Eve; now DreamWorks has a Netflix-based Croods series in the works as well, according to a Variety report on DreamWorks' latest ventures into television animation. It makes sense that this would be the next one in line, since the film was a huge hit for the studio. It's the second highest grossing non-sequel animated film behind Kung Fu Panda, with an impressive $587 million.
Teaming up with Netflix was a very smart move, because those 300 hours of programming will function as something of a little safety net for the studio since the high costs of their films proved to be quite detrimental to them recently. Again, the $145 million Rise of the Guardians lead to a schedule reshuffling and massive layoffs, Turbo created some more trouble after it failed to recoup its $135 million budget. Also, the company felt that making a show for Netflix was a good idea because it wouldn't impose the limitations that cable networks bring, thus the creators have some room to breathe - plus they want to have more ownership of their franchises.
This is very vital for their expansion. DreamWorks is trying to become something of an empire, looking into a television channel, theme parks and other things. Roughly $130 million films can't just keep them afloat, the aftermath of Rise of the Guardians certainly proved this. What they do, business-wise, is truly a big risk, and they're the only non-Disney animation studio making films that cost more than $120 million to produce. Blue Sky, Illumination, Sony Animation and Reel FX are wisely conservative with their budgets because they don't have a mega-corporation like Disney to back them up if a film fails.
Anyways, DreamWorks intends to build franchises with these shows and help sell more merchandise from apps to toys, which - in addition to video sales - could end up fueling theatrical sequels. Jeffrey Katzenberg also stated that home media sales and other things are factored in and that Turbo will be profitable, so it's possible that Turbo could become a full-fledged franchise thanks to the television show. Now the bigger question: Is Rise of the Guardians profitable now? I heard Blu-ray and DVD sales were pretty good, not sure about merchandise sales though. If they can make Rise of the Guardians a part of this new franchise extension strategy, that would be great. The film actually outgrossed Turbo both domestically and worldwide, plus it begs for a theatrical sequel more so than The Croods or Turbo, methinks.
The trailer for Turbo F.A.S.T. shows that it has potential, perhaps it'll do something really cool with the film's bizarre premise. The film shackled such a weird idea to the same underdog story we've seen before, perhaps the show will go all out with the idea of racing snails. That would be nice, plus the animation doesn't look too bad. After all, Titmouse produced it. Maybe this is what Turbo should've been to begin with, a TV series with a strange premise. It seems like you have more creativity with television animation these days, hence fare like Adventure Time, Regular Show, Wander Over Yander and other off-the-wall and surreal shows.
I don't know, I think it looks impressive for what it is. Perhaps DreamWorks can add more to the worlds they have created with these new shows.
Maybe this kind of thing will open up new doors for television animation.
It's old news by now, but yes… The Golden Globe nominations are out… And I'll put it bluntly, I'm not pleased with the animation results. Only three nominees this year. A paltry three, instead of five. Who made the cut? The Croods, Despicable Me 2 and Frozen. Aside from Frozen's nomination - which I'm totally fine with - my reaction is a resounding, "Are you kidding me?"
No offense to anyone who enjoyed or loved The Croods or Despicable Me 2, but where is The Wind Rises? Oh wait, that's nominated for Best Foreign Film. Sheesh, these people like to put animation in its own category, yet don't nominate what is arguably the year's greatest animated film as Best Animated Feature. Who would've thought?
Where's Ernest & Celestine? Apparently that wasn't good enough, or they didn't even see it. Then again, we are talking about the same people who completely snubbed ParaNorman last year yet allowed the much inferior Hotel Transylvania to make the cut. Apparently box office plays a major role in this ceremony too, sorry, I don't follow it enough. I should know…
Anyways, if box office performances are taken in account, then… (and this is the biggest question…)
Where is Monsters University???
Did the voters truly not care for this year's Pixar offering? Or was it a clear case of them thinking, "It's a sequel/prequel, and Pixar totally fails at making those!" Probably the latter, but maybe the former. Monsters University garnered better critical reception than The Croods and Despicable Me 2, I certainly felt that it was way better than The Croods. I didn't see Despicable Me 2, but I for the life of me don't understand the appeal of The Croods. Good as the animation and art direction was, I couldn't get into it. All I saw was a good-looking movie with a bland story, one-dimensional characters and major tonal imbalances. Was it trying to be a good for-the-whole-family adventure? Or a slap-happy gabfest for little kids?
Basically, meh to this line-up. It should've been five slots, that way we get both Monsters University and The Wind Rises in. If they can't nominate The Wind Rises, thenthey need to rethink their ways a bit. I don't care if The Wind Rises was made in Japan, it's still an animated feature-length film. It should have been nominated for Best Animated Feature, simple as that. By leaving that out, they also leave out the praised Ernest & Celestine. Had it been five slots, those two could've gotten in and could've sat alongside the three American films.
Oh well, we'll see who wins… I'm guessing it'll most likely be Frozen, since that got the best reception of the bunch, is well-liked and touted as a new Disney masterpiece, and it is the safest choice. After all, Brave took the grand prize last year. Predictable, but damn… The results this year are disappointing as all hell. Hopefully the Oscar nominations for Best Animated Feature are a little more balanced…
What's your take? Do you think the choices for the nominees are just fine? Or do you think certain films got snubbed? Who do you think will win? Sound off below!
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?
I think we all saw this one coming. DreamWorks' The Croods is getting a sequel. This was announced two days ago by the Hollywood Reporter, and it was also brought up during Fox's presentation at CinemaCon yesterday. During that presentation, they also showed footage from upcoming DreamWorks films such as Mr. Peabody and Sherman and How To Train Your Dragon 2. What do we know so far? Chris Sanders and Kirk DeMicco, the directors of the film, will return to helm the sequel. When is it coming out? Who knows, but my money is on a March 2017 release. This was very inevitable since The Croods was something of a relief for the studio, after the disappointing performance of the very good Rise of the Guardians and the layoffs that followed. The film, to date, has grossed over $388 million at the worldwide box office and it should gross in the mid-400s by the end of its run. The Sanders-DeMicco romp really appealed to family audiences, plus there was next to no competition in its way.
As you all know, I was one of the few who didn't love The Croods. I felt it was a decent adventure comedy at best, but with uneven pacing and an inconsistent tone. That being said, who knows what the two directors will bring to the table for the sequel. Perhaps it could be better. DreamWorks has shown lately that they want to improve upon the flaws in their films with the sequels. Madagascar is at best an average film that has story problems, but the sequel corrects those problems. Madagascar 3 is even better, sticking to a tone that works perfectly and also telling a surprisingly good story. Kung Fu Panda 2 has a much better and much more dramatic storyline than its predecessor, yet it's still action-packed and loaded with fun. Shrek Forever After ditches what Shrek's two lackluster sequels went for and instead tries to tell a story, even if the story is not so good. Puss in Boots also avoids the Shrek formula and it makes for a solid fantasy adventure that can be separated from the Shrek franchise. In short, most of the recent DreamWorks sequels are good.
So a Croods sequel could be good. Maybe the crew will focus on the characters a little more and less on funny stuff. I have a feeling that this is going to be the DreamWorks equivalent of the Ice Age franchise: A very appealing prehistoric-set comedy series that'll kill at the box office each time out. Coincidentally, both are released under 20th Century Fox. Anyways, all I can say is, go for it DreamWorks!
Do you think a Croods sequel will work? Or do you think that it isn't necessary? When do you think it'll hit theaters? Sound off below!
I happened to catch the first big animated film of 2013 just a few hours ago... DreamWorks' The Croods! To start off, the animation in this film is jaw-dropping. Not only does it look great, but the whole design of the film is just flat out creative. Prehistoric Earth is different presented in a far more colorful way than the usual, from the unusual-looking rock formations to the vibrant vegetation. The creatures that we see in this film are just awesome... The designs of all the beasts that the titular family encounter on their journey are very nice... Again, it's just one really great-looking film. Everything in it is just eye candy, and it's the kind of eye candy that only an animated film can give you. Thumbs up to the traditionally animated opening sequence!
The story? It's decent enough. It's not exactly shattering or innovative, it's the standard kind of story where the father fears anything "new" and prefers to stick with the tried and true. I think they did a pretty good job with the father-daughter story, and it didn't really come off as the typical "parent is overprotective of the adventurous child" story though it wasn't exactly a fresh new spin either. It was harmless for the most part and it works, it stays consistent throughout though. Most of the characters are likable too.
The family is well-defined and the father's actions make sense as he does have every good reason to be afraid. That's all well done and yes, there really isn't too much to the story but there isn't too little either. It's decidedly very simplistic. I was initially not too sure whether I'd like the leads because from watching the trailers, I just wasn't too fond of their designs. I felt that they were a little too exaggerated, but once you get halfway through the film, you get pretty used to them.
So is the writing any good? Well... It needs a little work. The first half of the film has very uneven pacing, making the film feel more like a kids film than a family film. It had its hyperactive moments, but they weren't quite well balanced with the slower moments. The pacing of the first half can best be described as... Fast! Slow! Fast! Slow! Fast! Slow!
The second half is far better, where the film finally starts taking a real breather and allows for some development to be made on Grugg and his daughter Eep. The other characters, aside from Guy, really only function as comic relief more than anything. The humor ranges from clever to forced. There is a lot of slapstick, but not all of it really works. At many times, the slapstick seems to come out of nowhere... Again, this is a result of the pacing. The film has a hard time finding a mood in the first half, feeling like a kids film. The second half feels like a family film, with less random humor and more focus on the story.
The film was directed by Chris Sanders and Kirk DeMicco. Sanders is usually renowned for his sense of storytelling and his quirky creativity. His creativity definitely shines in this film, like I said, it's wonderful to look at and there are sequences where you find yourself immersed in this world that they created. These are the better moments of the film where the story actually has a point, rather than taking a backseat to jokes. I feel that there was definitely a clash of styles with this film, as Kirk DeMicco doesn't have such a hot track record. My theory is that Sanders wanted quirkiness and emotional stuff (much like his other two films, Lilo & Stitch and How To Train Your Dragon) while DeMicco wanted jokes and pacing that's suited for kids after they've downed a bowl of candy.
A lot of the humor is either slapstick or Flinestones-esque spins on modern things, some of those jokes were better than most of the stuff that was on display in that show. The photo joke was particularly funny along with a few other things, while some were just cringeworthy. Some of the humor concerning the different animals was well-handled too, particularly the bits with the saber-toothed tiger. The humor is overall a mixed bag, something I was somewhat expecting since DreamWorks is still figuring out how to use humor and what kind to use.
So The Croods is basically half good family film / half "hit-or-miss kids film trying to appeal to adults". It's not a bad film, it's just wildly uneven at parts. Messy first half, very good second half... The Croods is a fun little flick at best with truly impressive visuals. It's nice lightweight fare with a little extra. Recommended!
DreamWorks Animation's The Croods was a box office hit this weekend... Yes, this was inevitable for many reasons. Despite the fact that the trailers and marketing turned off a lot of folks in the animation community (I wasn't one of them, I was more mixed on what I was seeing), it sure did well with general audiences. I was expecting that to happen. The prehistoric comedy-adventure opened with a very good $43 million, and an additional $62 million overseas. It's off to a good start.
The studio's last release, Rise of the Guardians, was sadly a box office disappointment. I finally saw the film for the first time yesterday and loved it, but like I said before, I could see why it had trouble on opening weekend. I didn't think The Croods would be in any trouble; it looked far more accessible than Guardians. A family of cavemen going on a colorful, comedic adventure? Easier sell than a fairly serious film about epic fantasy-like versions of our childhood legends teaming up to save the children of the world. Fox's marketing for this film focused on the fun and comedic tone of the film, and that's why it appealed.
How will it do in the long run? Well, most DreamWorks films get good word-of-mouth. This film has all of April to itself without any major family-friendly competition; though something like G.I. Joe: Retaliation (also in 3D) can take away some younger audiences, this'll have staying power until the big blockbusters come in. I think it could finish up with around $150-170 million domestically. The "A" grade on CinemaScore and the good reception guarantee that this will be a hit and a rebound for the studio.
The other day, DreamWorks' new animated film The Croods had a solid 85% on Rotten Tomatoes. It seemed like the new Chris Sanders film was another winner much like his last film - and his first for DreamWorks - How To Train Your Dragon.
But now that the film has finally opened and more critics have seen it, the percentage dropped quite a bit... To a respectable 64%. Metacritic, on the other hand, has it at a "mixed" 56. However, Rise of the Guardians has a 57 on there while its percentage on Rotten Tomatoes was over 70%, ditto Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (RT - 79% / Meta - 60).
Once again, it's another critical success for DreamWorks! Another indicator of how well they've been doing lately.
Reviews imply that the film looks great and is overall a fun romp for the whole family, but it's definitely not up to the best. Other reviews somewhat confirm what I thought this film would turn out to be. It's more in line with Madagascar than How To Train Your Dragon, so it's a little more comedic and it has quite a bit of slapstick. Nothing wrong with that, Madagascar 3 took that tone and ran with it. In turn, it was a good film because of that. I may say the same thing about this film.
So basically, according to the critics, The Croods is a fun flick but nothing spectacular. Well, we'll see what I think of it. I may think it's great, very good or maybe mediocre... You never know! When I get around to seeing it, expect a review!
Now that 2012 is almost over, let's take a look at next year's offerings. What do we know so far about the animated films opening in twenty thirteen? What do you think of the results so far?
~
Escape from Planet Earth Distributed by The Weinstein Company Studio: Rainmaker Entertainment Opening February 24, 2013
I’ll be completely honest here, the trailer didn’t make my eyes burn. That says a lot coming from an animated film from a distributor who is notoriously bad when it comes to animation. That doesn’t mean, however, that I liked it. Escape from Planet Earth looks so generic in every way, and the animation is nothing special. Also, is it just me, or does this film look like a giant commercial for 7-Eleven?
The Croods Distributed by 20th Century Fox Studio: DreamWorks Animation SKG Opening March 22, 2013
With the two trailers we have gotten alongside numerous images, The Croods looks like it’ll be another beautifully-made animated film that goes the safe route. It’s got that written all over it from the seemingly phoned-in story to the hit-or-miss gags. That being said, the trailers for this might be totally misleading and the film will turn out to be a smart, heartfelt animated adventure for the whole family. It’s what I’m personally hoping for, especially since this was directed by Chris Sanders and the fact that DreamWorks’ recent films are impressive. Please prove me wrong again!
Epic Distributed by 20th Century Fox Studio: Blue Sky Studios Opening May 24, 2013
So both trailers have a generally moody tone, grand-scale visuals, lots of action and pretty animation. But... There’s still an annoying, wisecracking slug that’ll induce more frustration than laughs. Also, our lead seems rather cardboard and the motives of the villains are unclear. However, this film is not out until May, so maybe another trailer will clear things up. Or, the film itself will be better than what the trailers suggest. For now, it just seems like Fox is trying to tell audiences, “This is no Ice Age” though the irritating slug contradicts that.
Monsters University Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures Studio: Pixar Animation Studios Opening June 21, 2013
Only a teaser and a promo of sorts (haven't seen what they attached to the Monsters, Inc. 3D yet), but the viral marketing is good and the stills we have gotten shows that this will probably be a more comedic film from Pixar, but with the same doses of heart and sincerity that define their films. When will we get a good, full trailer? I'm guessing somewhere around the release of Oz: The Great and Powerful. Disney better start marketing this one if they want another Toy Story 3-sized success.
Despicable Me 2 Distributed by Universal Pictures Studio: Illumination Entertainment Opening July 3, 2013
The recent trailer shows that it’ll be about aliens. You can either say it’s cheap and desperate, or an attempt to do what the first film didn’t. Either way, it looks like cute fun much like its predecessor. I’m not expecting anything more out of it, I’m just hoping it isn’t as shallow as The Lorax. Fun brainless animated comedies aren't always a bad thing, but a lot of animation fans probably dislike them because there's too many of them and a lot of them are forgettable. Despicable Me wasn't to these eyes, so hopefully this one will deliver.
Turbo
Distributed by 20th Century Fox
Studio: DreamWorks Animation SKG
Opening July 19, 2013
The teaser was cute, I'll admit that. How the story will play out is beyond me. Again, this could take its crazy premise and do good with it. I trust DreamWorks with it, so I'm hoping the next trailer delivers. Not much we can say about this at the moment, but a new trailer will probably be out in February or March. I'm thinking March more than anything, since DreamWorks' The Croods opens the 22nd.
The Smurfs 2
Distributed by Columbia Pictures
Studio: Sony Pictures Animation / The Kerner Entertainment Company
Opening July 31, 2013
What do we know? It'll be just like the first one. Egh.
Planes Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures Studio: DisneyToon Studios Opening August 9, 2013
All we know is what the story will be, and that John Lasseter is involved with the project. (Lasseter, I admire you, but this is your weakness!) There's a teaser as well, that does have competent animation, but that's about it. That being said, I don't expect anything good out of this. Yes, I do have a thing against the direct-to-video Disney sequels. Planes can be okay fun for all I care, but like I said, is a theatrical release really necessary?
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2
Distributed by Columbia Pictures
Studio: Sony Pictures Animation
Opening September 27, 2013
Very little has been announced about this sequel to Sony Animation's 2009 hit, and now that it's on track for an earlier release (it was originally penciled in for February 7, 2014), we should be getting some details by now. The original directors aren't returning so I'm not getting my hopes up. The same applies to Hotel Transylvania 2.
Ignore the "Spring 2014" at the bottom. This is an older image.
Mr. Peabody & Sherman
Distributed by 20th Century Fox
Studio: DreamWorks Animation SKG
Opening November 1, 2013
Just some story details and an image of the two leads themselves. A teaser should arrive by March, following DreamWorks' 2010 film pattern. Until then, we don't know much.
Frozen
Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures
Studio: Walt Disney Animation Studios
Opening November 27, 2013
Aside from some lovely concept art and other cast and crew details, there's no teaser or anything. Here's hoping one comes soon. I don't want to have to wait until June to see a teaser.
Walking with Dinosaurs 3D
Distributed by 20th Century Fox
Studio: Animal Logic / BBC Earth / BBC Worldwide
Evergreen Films / Reliance Big Entertainment
No word on this one. Not for a while. Will it still be distributed by Fox? Is it still on track for a December 20th release? We haven't heard anything for a long time. Interestingly enough, this will be co-directed by Barry Cook (who directed Mulan, co-directed Arthur Christmas and worked at Disney as an effects animator).
Unscheduled 2013 Releases
Currently, the three Weinstein Company animated releases scheduled to be released this year are up in the air. Leo the Lion, The Trick or Treaters and Santapprentice originally had release dates set but have disappeared. It's possible that the Weinstein Company may jump ship on these films and give them to another distributor, if not, maybe these said films aren't even in production yet. We saw a teaser poster and got some information on Escape from Planet Earth many months in advance, but nothing for the planned August release of Leo the Lion. No cast details or anything else. Methinks these will go direct-to-video.
Another odd case is Dino Time, a 2010 South Korean animated feature that was supposed to be released here in the states earlier this month. The dreadful, vomit-inducing trailer showed up before every (exaggeration) family-friendly film. It was being distributed by Clarius Entertainment, a company that only has two film listings on IMDb (this one being the first of which). Commercials were released as well, but sites like Box Office Mojo had no mention of the movie. Apparently it's been quietly pushed back to 2013, but this one may end up going straight to video. It was going to be a very limited release anyway.
~
What do you think of 2013's animated output so far? What films are looking forward to? Which ones will you skip? Sound off!
I was one of the few that was actually very fond of the teaser for DreamWorks' The Croods. That said teaser was met with mixed reactions, some of which were very negative while others couldn't find much to praise either. I guess I'm going to be in the minority again, because I actually preferred that teaser to the trailer, which just debuted today on iTunes.
Now it's not a bad trailer by any means, but I couldn't help but feel let down. The Croods looks a little more screwball than something like How To Train Your Dragon, as I have been admiring DreamWorks' recent turn towards more serious films that aren't crammed with tomfoolery, antics and yes... Those dreaded pop culture references! This looks like it'll be more in line with Madagascar, which is not necessarily a terrible thing. Madagascar, the third film in particular, used its silly tone to its advantage and made for a hilarious, entertaining romp. The Croods may or may not achieve this, and I have feeling it might not.
The more Ice Age-like feel clashes with the lush, colorful visuals and the big action-packed story. The world that DreamWorks' animators created for this film is flat out breathtaking and creative. No doubt it will be total eye candy, and not to mention the various beasts that the family of the Croods encounter on their journey. I also like that the trailer showed us more of Guy, which the early synopsis described as a man Eeb meets, a man who thinks ahead and about the future. Now he's known as the man with the brains, not the strength.
So basically, it's beautiful imagery vs. silly writing and humor. I have no doubt that Chris Sanders probably crafted a good story here, but the other director (Kirk DeMicco) was the man who helmed Space Chimps, an animated film from 2008 which many will agree was pretty bad. Though he may not be to blame for what we see in the trailer, it's a bit strange since Sanders normally avoids the silly stuff and goes for something serious, hence Lilo & Stitch and How To Train Your Dragon. This one may be a clash of two different visions, but hopefully I'm proven wrong on March 22nd.
From where I stand currently, The Croods reminds me of Blue Sky's upcoming Epic: A great-looking film, but one that is probably going to be more focused on comic relief and less on heart and character development. Again, I could be dead wrong and both will end up really impressing me. I am still looking forward to this and Epic, so who knows...
What did you think of the trailer? Did you like it? Or do you think this will be a clunker? Sound off!
I thought that DreamWorks wouldn't have a trailer for The Croods ready until the release of Rise of the Guardians next month, but they gave it to us now. Like the trailers for Rise of the Guardians, this shows that DreamWorks has really come a long way. Almost everything about this trailer works.
Pros: - The animation in this looks wonderful. The environment of the new world is lush, colorful and packed with details. - Also, take a look at the character designs. The humans look decent enough, your typical ooga-booga cavemen designs, but the glimpses of the beasts they encounter are just as colorful and imaginative as the art direction. Chris Sanders was a great choice of director, because this could've been by-the-numbers in terms of the visuals. - Like Rise of the Guardians, this story seems serious and there wasn't a single comic relief moment in here. Just lots and lots of action. This one is going to be thrilling. - I already like the whole idea of Grugg (the father) sticking to tradition while Eep (the daughter) wants to experience more. We didn't get much of the story where she meets the boy who looks forward into the future, but they're probably saving this for the next trailer.
Cons: - I know I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but the dialogue is a bit off since it's gone the How to Train Your Dragon route. But it's barely, barely distracting. It's only somewhat noticeable since the voice work tends to gravitate towards a more modern feel, but it doesn't throw off what is a very good trailer.
Now, onto The Lone Ranger...
Pros: - The teaser is very stylish, definitely trying to punch up the Western setting which could come across as bland. - The apparent big set piece with the roaring train shows that this Western will definitely be action-packed. - The setting is fine, no modernizations or anything. - Some of the music is cool as well, hard rock and the wild West do go together. - Since Gore Verbinski directed this film, there's a Rango vibe already. - The film's version of Disney logo is pretty sweet. You got to admit that.
Cons: - The story seems somewhat paper-thin, but it's just a teaser. We should get a more detailed outline in the next trailer, whenever it will show up.
Overall this teaser does its job right, and this'll be what John Carter's marketing campaign wasn't. This trailer and the poster alone beat a majority of the marketing for John Carter. Since Disney spent over $250 million on this picture, they don't want it to really go to waste. While it probably has to make over $500 million to break even, they at least want it to do the best it can at the box office. Will it flop and have the press kicking it around? Or will it surprise everyone?
Both trailers are impressive. The Croods showcases DreamWorks' newfound interest in storytelling rather than trying too hard to be funny, and The Lone Ranger looks like an action-packed take on the original radio show and television show and may just help revive the Western genre. Or not. Verbinski's Rango did well enough, so this could too.
What are your thoughts on these trailers? Does The Croods look like a potential classic from DreamWorks? Or another decent animated film? Does The Lone Ranger's new trailer interest you? Or does it bother you? Sound off!
_poster.jpg)
_poster.jpg)
