… And I Helped!

The Mouse House took in $4.73 billion at the international box office this past year…

$3 billion of that came from overseas grosses alone, and this is the fourth consecutive year where the studio had made over $2 billion around the globe.

Five of their films grossed over $200 million at the domestic box office, as opposed to just two last year: The Avengers and Brave.

Iron Man 3 was obviously going to be huge given the massive success of The Avengers before it, and the fact that Tony Stark is the Avenger who draws in the most crowds. 3D made things even better for this Marvel Cinematic Universe installment, $409 million stateside and over $1.5 billion worldwide is not too shabby!

Thor: The Dark World was also big because of this, but to a much lesser extent. Its marketing didn't really do all that good of a job making it look like it was worth seeing, but it's Thor, he's an Avenger and it pretty much kicked off the holiday season if Gravity didn't one month earlier. The sequel topped the original both stateside and globally. It's currently sitting at $629 million, you can't beat that!

Yes, the Marvel acquisition was an extremely smart business decision on Disney's part, wasn't it?

Oz the Great and Powerful seemed to benefit from the success of Alice in Wonderland and the rebooted fairy tale/classic children's stories fad. With a family-friendly PG rating and visual sparkle, Oz opened well and grossed a good amount here and overseas. While not a major success, it did break even. A near-$500 million total is still great!

Monsters University's success was a no-brainer: It's Pixar, it's a prequel to one of their beloved films, it was a summer release, its college setting got the teen audiences in easily. Its legs weren't the most spectacular, but it took in a massive $745 million worldwide making it Pixar's third biggest film behind Toy Story 3 and Finding Nemo, and further proving that feature animation will be now and forever. Suits look at those numbers and they want more!

But something else happened to help Disney reach the new box office height this year… A lot, I might add…

It happened to be the Walt Disney Animation Studios film that was released just in time for the holidays…

That's right. Frozen.

Domestically, it's on track to actually beat The Lion King's initial release gross of $312 million, and it just topped Monsters University. It's back at #1, actually. Worldwide, it's currently sitting at $539 million and it will beat the God of Thunder in no time, and will probably dethrone the college-bound Mike and Sulley. Imagine that: Walt Disney Animation Studios' newest film outgrossing the Pixar entry domestically and worldwide (yes, Tangled beat Cars 2 in North America and internationally, but Cars 2 was poorly received), and on top of that, the big budget tentpole and the Marvel blockbuster.

You know what this means…

Disney is finally going to start treating Walt Disney Animation Studios with even more respect, now that Frozen has made quite a hefty amount of money in just two months. Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph were not "once in a lifetime" hits, the studio is roaring again now that people are catching onto the fact that they are currently making good quality films. (Of course, I want these same people who flocked to see Frozen to go rent Meet The Robinsons, Bolt, The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh.) Now, next up is a Marvel animated film. The pieces have all fallen into place, Disney is most likely going to give the San Fransokyo-set action-packed epic a really big marketing push that'll ensure a blockbuster-sized gross.

In turn, it should help their future films. The once-dormant studio is now more than a valuable asset to the company, as they now make big hits for them and will end up contributing to the big amounts of moolah the company makes in a calendar year. It ain't gonna be just Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm bringing in the massive amounts of dough. Quite a contrast from the fate I feared the studio would suffer. Earlier in the year, I irrationally worried that the bigwigs would possibly slowly phase the studio out and just get the big money from their acquisitions and live action franchises. Silly me…

What a way to start 2014, huh? Knowing that Walt Disney Animation Studios is really ready to go full steam ahead. All we need now is for each new film to be consistently and wholly satisfying.

Freezing The King - A Rant

Yes, Frozen may actually freeze The Lion King… At the box office, that is…

Box Office Mojo's Ray Subers, in his write-up of this weekend's box office results, suggests that the new Walt Disney Animation Studios event could possibly make more than $300 million at the domestic box office.

You heard that right. $300 million…

This excites me and frustrates me at the same time.

Frozen may have a shot at being the first Disney Animation film to gross $300 million in North America, and it could also possibly be their highest-grossing of all time. The Lion King's "initial release" domestic take was a then-monolith $312 million. The 2002 IMAX re-release added another $15 million, the 2011 3D re-release added a shocking $94 million. Its total lifetime gross is $422 million, and there's no way Frozen will beat that. Of course, we don't expect it to. I don't count re-release totals when it comes to this. (i.e. The Rescuers was the biggest Disney animated film on initial release back in 1977, but of all-time counting re-issues? Nope.)

This weekend, the icy film lightly slipped a great 15% from its previous weekend. The film has grossed $192 million in nearly a month. The Christmas week will greatly add to it, and it'll have excellent legs afterwards. It's got the animation and family film world all to itself until The Lego Movie opens in February, because… Let's be honest here, The Nut Job ain't touching this film with a 39 1/2-foot pole.

The great thing about this is, it not only shows that Walt Disney Animation Studios is a worthy competitor at the box office (a few years ago, they weren't), but also a roost-ruler. Pixar currently sits on top alongside Illumination (though I have a feeling that outside of Despicable Me and Dr. Seuss, they'll be making good-sized hits at best), and occasionally DreamWorks. Very few animated films have topped $250 million at the domestic box office since 2010. Monsters University and Despicable Me 2 have raced past that mark, now it looks like Frozen will do the same. Yes, Disney is sitting up there with the giants… Finally…

But why am I also somewhat peeved about this? I should be all-out happy with this film's success, right? Right?

Well, I am happy - first and foremost - for the film itself and Walt Disney Animation Studios. They've deserved a $200M+ domestic hit since Bolt. But that's just it…

If you've seen my review of Frozen, you'll know that I am not gushing over the film. I didn't think it was a "great" movie, but a "very good" movie instead. I had problems with it, and at times I felt that it was very inconsistent and even a little undercooked. Considering the hell this project went through for nearly two decades, I guess we can all say that we should be happy that the film is decent at the least. This could've been a major league disaster, so I am thankful for it being good.

I can accept the fact that something like this went through a lot to get to the big screen, but I'm just not too keen on all the hyperbole. "Best Disney animated film since Lion King!" Stop that already, please take the time to watch films like The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan, Lilo & Stitch, Bolt, The Princess and the Frog, Tangled, Winnie the Pooh and Wreck-It Ralph. If you did and still consider this the best since Lion King, fine. At least you have seen the films, but I get the feeling that a lot of people haven't, or only saw them once when they were ten and rejected them.

If Frozen hits $300 million domestically, it'll have scored a 4.5x multiplier, which is a notch higher than Frog and Tangled's multipliers. I bet you if both of those films opened with $66 million like this film did, they would've grossed around the same amount in the end. Problem is, Frog opened with $24 million, Tangled opened with $48 million. This film would've opened with around the latter's amount if the marketing department didn't wise up and give us that wonderful "First Time in Forever" trailer, heavily plug the soundtrack and make the film look good to people over the age of twelve.

Frozen's got the legs that Bolt, Frog and Tangled had. It's only outgrossing them by a wide margin because of the opening weekend gross, plus some added hyperbole. When you put it out there that it's supposedly the "best" since Lion King, obviously people will flock to see it.

Now I'm not angry that Frozen is outgrossing what I believe are superior films (such as Bolt, Frog, Tangled and Ralph), I'm just cautious because Disney suits may react to this success the wrong way. Executives tend to do this kind of thing. I can hear it now, actually.

"They like modern princess movies! They like Broadway-style musicals! Make more!"

Okay fine, you can make more. I am anticipating Giants, which is essentially the third "modernized fairy tale musical", the first two being Tangled and this of course. I'd be down with one every three years, it's not a bad template. Tangled's story is very different from Frozen's. If there are any similarities, then they are very small. Snow White and Cinderella aren't the same, but they happen to have princess leads, handsome princes, cute animals and are based on fairy tales. Storywise, they are very different.

But if Disney executives push Disney Animation to just stick to fairy tales, I won't be pleased. Fairy tales may be what Disney is best known for, but other classics like Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, One Hundred and One Dalmatians and heck, freakin' Lion King, prove that Disney is more than just fairy tales. They are also more than just snarky comedy-drama Broadway musicals.

Why am I concerned though?

Well, Disney Animation's next two films are not fairy tales nor are they musicals in a "classic Disney" sense. Big Hero 6 is about as anti-Renaissance-era Disney as you can get, ditto Zootopia. I'm glad they are, because I'm not keen on Disney sticking to a formula. Walt hated formulas, he wanted to be diverse. I believe Disney Animation should be that way, all of the time. Try something different, but still revisit what you tried before every once in a while because it is a top menu on the item.

But here's a big concern of mine…

What if Disney were to view Bolt, The Princess and the Frog, Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph as the sort of Oliver & Company and Great Mouse Detectives of the last 5 years? Or "lesser" films that were successful but not huge (i.e. Hunchback, Hercules, etc.)?

When Disney was finally smashing the box office left and right with popular hits like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and so on, those two 1980s films - one was a profitable and critically well-liked film, the other was a modest success that got mixed reviews - fell to the wayside. The Great Mouse Detective is never promoted with a lot of fanfare whenever it comes around, ditto Oliver & Company.

The Great Mouse Detective may not be a sweeping musical event like Beauty and the Beast, and I do consider Beast to be a better film than Mouse Detective, but that doesn't mean the Sherlock Holmesian rodent romp should be treated like a red-headed stepchild. Yes, I believe Disney treats it like that to an extent, at least it's listed in the classics canon. The Great Mouse Detective in my book is a brisk, fun, breezy, simple adventure story with some very likable characters, a highly enjoyable villain and some incredibly entertaining sequences. A film more people should at least watch. It was also the first film directed by Ron Clements and John Musker, who would give us some of Disney's most beloved films after that. However, it's not really promoted like other Disney films, its DVD and Blu-ray releases lack the attention and care given to the disc releases of something like Beast (now I'm not asking for a packed mega 2-disc set, though that would be nice), and it's just really kind of… Obscure. It isn't dated, it's not a product of its time. It's a Victorian-set sleuth story, that's kind of timeless if you ask me.

I'm not saying Disney should shove Basil of Baker Street, David Q. Dawson, Olivia Flaversham, Professor Ratigan and the rest of the cast down your throat, but come on! A little push, maybe some more prominence in merchandise and theme parks? Maybe that could attract… You know… Potential fans? Yes it's on Netflix, but that isn't enough if you ask me. It's more than just an "obscure Disney film that happens to be on Netflix." (Over a decade ago, something like Disney's House of Mouse was a good way to keep many characters in the minds of fans, casual viewers and whatnot.)

As for Oliver & Company, well… That's kind of tricky. Again, I don't think Disney should shun any of their animated classics, but Oliver & Company is a near-embarassment because it was really just amped up to be hip in 1988, to make a safe, quick buck. That it did. It was the highest grossing animated film on initial release at the time, and it just functioned as a way to keep Disney Animation trucking and to also show Don Bluth that he wasn't going to be the only one ruling the roost. That being said, it should not be forgotten. It's a footnote, and Disney should treat it as that. Not as an obscure "Ehhh we're scraping the bottom of the barrel so we have to put it out on Blu-ray" film.

Then there's the post-Lion King Renaissance-era films. Films like The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Hercules seem to only be discovered by nostalgic 90s folks today, Mulan and Tarzan are in good standing since they were sizable hits back in the day, ditto something like Robin Hood - which was always doing fine in video sales in the 1980s and 1990s - or Pocahontas, though they could get a little more push from the Mouse. Maybe more prominence in merch and parks, that always helps. Maybe some of these films, like Mouse Detective, aren't animated Citizen Kanes. Maybe they may not be iconic, but that doesn't mean they should be neglected or seen as "lesser". You can make films like these, well, popular enough.

After Disney got the box office and critical power they had been waiting for in the early 1990s, they effectively shoved The Great Mouse Detective and Oliver & Company out of sight. The latter, I can see why. Again, it was dated and just thrown together to make an easy buck. But why did the former have to get shut out? It wasn't dated or cobbled together, it was a genuinely enjoyable flick. Oh what? It didn't make a blockbuster total at the box office? Whatever. They should've used its modest success to its advantage, treat it like a little Sword in the Stone or Robin Hood. Something of the sort, a little profitable film that continues to do well and garner fans.

See, this is why I'm a bit worried about Disney possibly shutting out some of the last string of films. Bolt was a modest hit, as it did double its budget worldwide and sold well on DVD/Blu-ray. It got great reviews, too! Kind of like Great Mouse Detective, and Disney ignores that film even though it got good reviews and it has a sizable fan base.

Meet The Robinsons will probably get the shaft, big time. Wasn't a box office hit, got okay reviews at best, and is seemingly already forgotten. It's seen as a sort of slightly salvaged mess, one Lasseter could not save, etc. (I beg to differ, but…)

The Princess and the Frog and Tangled are safe, being familiar princess films and merchandising monsters.

Winnie the Pooh might not have been seen by many, but the character is now and forever. It's pretty much safe.

Wreck-It Ralph, box office-wise, is above the Oliver & Company spot. It wasn't a modest success, it was a success. Doubled its budget, sold well on home video, merchandise sold well. Out of the other films, that one is the least likely to be pushed aside. But the video game angle could hurt it, as some inside the company may view it as dated… Like Oliver & Company. Unlike that movie though, it was well-received, it took home a few awards as well! It's kind of in the middle.

But back to Frozen, now that I got the "forgetting thing" out of the way.

Another big concern of mine is this…

How will Disney approach future animated features now that a familiar tale has become their biggest hit since The Lion King?

Disney's marketing department has shown that they can't always market a film correctly, which is true of pretty much every other big studio. For instance, this year Warner Bros. totally botched the marketing for Pacific Rim, making something unique look like just another dull summer blockbuster or "Transformers with giant monsters". Fox couldn't make DreamWorks' Turbo look like anything but a silly kiddie film with its been-there done-that trailers and ads. Last summer, Paramount sold DreamWorks' Rise of the Guardians as an action-packed film, something quasi-cool for action-loving teens, and the movie blew up in their faces. In the process they left out the whimsy and imaginative tone that would've attracted other demographics.

… and so on… Disney has had a history of bad marketing outside of animated films: John Carter, The Lone Ranger, Prince of Persia, The Sorcerer's Apprentice…

But… Bolt and Frog's marketing (done by the previous team, not the current one that was established in 2009 after Rich Ross took over) was inexcusably poor, Tangled's was too cynical. Yes, it gave the film its good-sized opening weekend gross, but it did alienate adults and fans in the process. Ralph's marketing also shut out adults, with its emphasis on "Hero's Doody" jokes and less emphasis on the story. Frozen's campaign smartly emphasized the story, music and characters (albeit at the last minute) which in turn got more adults to show up. Sorry Scott Mendelson of Forbes, but I feel that your defense of the kid-centric marketing is way off.

Had Ralph or Tangled's campaigns did what Frozen did in the end, they would've performed similarly to this new picture.

Now that the studio has a huge hit under its belt, the marketing needs to keep things going. Good marketing sells a movie, no matter how good or bad the movie is. Disney Animation, of all things, just needs to be sold properly to audiences. Big Hero 6 needs to be an event, Zootopia needs to be an event, Giants, Moana, all the future projects. All of them. They need to be events! They need to look appealing to moviegoers. The studio is firing on all cylinders and are delivering top notch stories with great characters, lovely animation and a diverse batch of settings, themes and narratives.

Let's hope that Disney emphasizes the future films' qualities in the trailers, ads and marketing materials instead of just slacking off, instead opting to be cliche and pelt the audiences with jokes, jokes and more jokes - like trailers for every other big-release animated movie out there. Big Hero 6 isn't a big musical fairy tale like Frozen, but so what? The Incredibles was an animated superhero film and that was big, Marvel movies are in, superheroes are in. Period. Strike the iron while it's hot! Big Hero 6 could very well nestle itself in the top five highest grossing Disney animated features league. Zootopia is a talking animals film, but that doesn't matter, make it look awesome to the general public! Show how cool the animals-only world of the film will be! Don't market it like Ice Age 12 or whatever, it's more than that!

The goal is to show audiences that Disney Animation isn't just about fairy tales, once upon a time stories, musicals and cutesy talking animal romps. Disney Animation can tackle anything, they can do a space opera, a mystery thriller, an epic fantasy, a small-scale drama… Anything! Audiences may think Disney can or "should only" do fairy tales, no. They can do more, Pixar wins because of this. Diversity rules in the end, and Disney can get other audiences to go see their animated films by tackling new genres. In turn, their audience will grow and grow. They can sit right alongside Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm. No wait, they already do!

I'm not saying Big Hero 6, Zootopia, Giants, Moana and the rest should all be $300 million+ blockbusters… That's unreasonable to expect. Pixar couldn't do it, The Incredibles didn't come close to Finding Nemo's huge $339 million gross. (The press went all "What went wrong?", especially when Cars' opening weekend was a little below The Incredibles' opening weekend.) But I all want them to do very good, so they keep the studio going and also get the public to accept new kinds of stories from Disney, so no one goes "But Disney should only do fairy tales! That's what they do best!"

This kind of thing was attempted last decade, but corporate meddling and mismanagement ran that plan into the ground. Dinosaur was killed by the decision to make the dinosaurs talk in hip slang. Emperor's New Groove cost too much because it evolved out of another movie that was already costly enough, it looked bad from the previews and the actually good movie had to rely on word of mouth to make its money… And it still bombed. Atlantis was not allowed to be the cool epic action film it could've been, ditto Treasure Planet plus the marketing made it look like "Disney Extreme Sports… In Spaaaaaaaaace!" Brother Bear and Home on the Range were aimed at kids first, which alienated everyone else. It's quite telling that the derivative, cynical, Shrek-chasing Chicken Little did better than all these films. It's also quite telling that a good film like Lilo & Stitch outgrossed these films.

I see this new era as a revival of that failed plan, but this time, there's no David Stainton or executives having too much control over the product. If Wreck-It Ralph was made in 2002 during the Eisner-Stainton era, it would've tanked, because its screenplay would've been dumbed down, its better ideas would've hit the cutting room floor and the marketing would've made it look terrible. Nope, Wreck-It Ralph was a hit because the screenplay played to adults and kids - it didn't pander to them, bad ideas hit the cutting room floor and the marketing made it look good enough.

Big Hero 6, Zootopia, Moana, Dean Wellins' "Space Race" film, King of the Elves and several others are risky and different like Dinosaur, The Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis, Treasure Planet and Sweating Bullets (yes, Bullets became Home on the Range, but that early incarnation of Disney's failed Western had lots of potential). The difference is, these films are going to be allowed to be good movies… And what they want to be. That's all thanks to the awful, horrible devils that are John Lasseter and Ed Catmull, plus the great writers and animators who bring these stories to life.

Now also…

Attendance and grosses are two different things…

The Lion King's initial $312 million domestic total translates to roughly 74 million tickets today. If Frozen finishes up with $300 million, it'll have sold less than 40 million tickets. Still a big amount of tickets, but…

Grosses don't mean everything. People still saw films like Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph. People have discovered the likes of Bolt and Frog on video, television or other ways. Frozen may make a lot, but Disney better not reserve a throne for that film whilst telling the canine, the frogs and the video game wrecker to take a hike. They already did that to the hunchback, the super-strong hero and several others.

So hopefully the success of Frozen doesn't continue Disney's rather unfair trend of picking and choosing, and hopefully it doesn't drive Disney to go about selling their future animated films the wrong way. They should use the success of Frozen and the films before it to their advantage. Even though Bolt and Frog didn't outgross Chicken Little, they still outgrossed films like Treasure Planet, Brother Bear and Home on the Range. Chicken Little was lucky, because in 2005, if you were CGI and had a DreamWorks-y attitude, you were a hit. Today? Not so much.

Since Bolt and Frog outgrossed the non-fad films from the studio during the 2000-2005 period (minus you know who, of course), they could be used to demonstrate a growing momentum. It's kind of similar to how Disney used the grosses of Oliver, Mermaid and Beast to prove that Disney Animation was getting bigger and bigger. Bolt and Frog could be them saying: "Look. We're slowly winning back the audiences we lost." Now add in the success of Tangled and Ralph, they'll show: "Look! We got even bigger with those two!" Then Frozen can be their capper, their Aladdin/Lion King smash: "We're back in action now!"

This in turn could really hype up the next string of films, it could drive the marketing department to want to keep the gravy train going. The Renaissance fell after The Lion King because we started getting films like Pocahontas; films that were messes, byproducts of misguided intentions clashing and executive meddling. The declining quality of films got good amounts of people to stay away, not marketing. The marketing still gave it their all when readying films like Hunchback, Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan to at least help the films make their money back. Guess what? The films did good at the box office! Hunchback, Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan were by all means "hit films" back in the day. Lion King was that rare, once-in-a-lifetime freak success that also hit the summit of the momentum mountain. Did they really think that Pocahontas would repeat that? Or Aladdin's then-enormous $217 million gross? It doesn't work that way. The ignorant higher ups scoffed at the post-Lion King films just because they didn't make Aladdin or Lion King numbers despite being very profitable and selling like mad on home video afterwards. Boo-frickity-hoo…

The quality is consistent with these new films, thanks to the studio's current environment. No formulas, no repeating, no annoyances in the films that drive audiences away. No focus groups telling them what to do, no executives taking their cool ideas and watering them down for toddlers. The current Disney brass better know this, and they better take advantage. A new Renaissance is upon the studio, one that could last a very, very long time.

Time to go big or go home.

In fact… That should be Big Hero 6's tagline. "This Fall… Go BIG or go home!"

Top Dog

Frozen has officially claimed the record for biggest opening of a Walt Disney Animation Studios film…

Beating out previous record-holder Wreck-It Ralph ($49 million), the new film from the Burbank studios has taken in an estimated $66 million (!) over the weekend. Since the film opened on Wednesday, it's now sitting at a huge $93 million, beating out the Thanksgiving opener record held for 14 years by Toy Story 2 ($80 million).

Boy… Walt Disney Animation Studios must be super happy. Again, that's what happens when you emphasize on what your movie is really about when marketing it. The final trailer and the constant plugging of the soundtrack did the trick, because many were certain that this film was going to underperform on opening weekend at best. (Boxoffice.com had predicted $38 million!) The teaser and the trailer upset many animation fans and many had already made up their minds about the film… Until that Elsa-centric trailer!

That weekend gross, though…

For a while, very few animated films released after 2010 - other than Pixar's - seemed to gross over $50 million on opening weekend. DreamWorks scored one film that did so in 2012, but that was a sequel - Madagascar 3 ($60 million). Illumination's The Lorax inexplicably opened with $70 million earlier that year, Despicable Me 2 inevitably opened with $83 million. Anything else besides the three previous Pixar films? Nope. Pixar earns their $60 million weekends given their history of great films, and thus they have a built-in adult audience that shows up on opening weekend.

Since Frozen was sold - albeit very late in the game - as a heartfelt and humorous musical fairy tale Disney classic, it got the audiences, the fans and adults into the theater. Now, Disney marketing, I beg you… Please dedicate the same amount of care and effort into the marketing campaigns for all future Walt Disney Animation Studios films. Treat all the future films, that includes the non-fairy tale/musical films, as events. Big Hero 6 is an event, Zootopia is an event, Giants is an event, Moana is an event. Your previous six films are events, regardless of how they did at the box office. A Walt Disney Animation Studios film is an event!

It is high time that Walt Disney Animation Studios films regularly open with more than $50 million at the domestic box office. (Bolt, The Princess and the Frog, Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph all had the potential to do so.) Why's that? Because Walt Disney Animation Studios films are, once again, events. Treat them all as such, even the previous string of films. Audiences need to see these films!

Frozen Frenzy

Frozen is most likely going to score the biggest opening weekend gross for a Disney animated film, beating out the previous record-holder held by last year's Wreck-It Ralph (which took in a solid $49 million) while also possibly being one of the rare non-Pixar films to cross the $250 million mark at the domestic box office. That's what good marketing does for you!

On Wednesday, it took in a very good $15 million, which is higher than Tangled's $11 million first day gross. Already great, then on Thursday, it took in $11 million. Also good… Yesterday, however…

$26 million…

You read that right… $26 million on Friday alone. I heard reports of the movie selling out all over the country, of all things! It's in second place behind The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, which didn't outgross it by much! $26 million… That beat out the likes of Brave and Cars 2, both of which opened with $66 million domestically. It also outdid several other recent animated films, and it legitimately has a shot at grossing over $70 million this weekend. Maybe even a lot more since it's the holiday season! There is talk of it topping the Thanksgiving 5-day record held by Toy Story 2 ($80 million), and possibly making more than $90 million by Sunday… It's very doable!

See Disney, that's what happens you advertise a film the way it should be advertised. That final trailer must've done the trick, while the more pandering marketing (meaning, everything up until the third "Elsa" trailer came out) helped a little bit. Now please, market all of your future films correctly, please walk away with a valuable lesson from this film's success! (And no, not an "audiences only want 90s-style Disney fairy tales!" lesson, more like a "we need to make movies look good to the audiences!" lesson.)

Now if only The Princess and the Frog was that successful… Tangled would've opened with this much had the marketing not made it look like a Shrek-era DreamWorks film… But, that's what crappy marketing does to your films, it limits them from doing better. If Disney were smart, they'd market their future Disney animated films the way they marketed Frozen. They need to fully convince their audiences that Big Hero 6, Zootopia, Giants and Moana are events, not throwaway animation hit-of-the-week films. Films worth seeing over and over in theaters! I know they can do it, the question is… Will they? That's another story...

Move Panda, Move...

Now that Disney has announced the official release date for Star Wars: Episode VII, I think it's high time that 20th Century Fox and DreamWorks move a certain production out of the holiday season…

Kung Fu Panda 3 was initially announced as a March 2016 release, only to trade places with the tentatively-titled Mumbai Musical. Since last autumn, Kung Fu Panda 3 has been a Christmas 2015 release. The December 23rd date was locked many weeks before Disney announced the Lucasfilm acquisition.

But a year has passed and things have changed, as always in the ever-changing film world - especially in the animation world!

DreamWorks is adamant that they'll release three films every calendar year; next year we're getting Mr. Peabody & Sherman (March 7th), How To Train Your Dragon 2 (June 13th) and Home (November 26th)...

The other two films slated for release in 2015 are The Penguins of Madagascar (March 27th) and B.O.O.: Bureau of Otherworldly Operations (June 5th). The first one is good where it is, the second is crammed between Paramount Animation's Monster Trucks and Pixar's Inside Out, the latter of the two competitors could possibly hurt it. However, if Fox markets the ghostly film right and it turns out to be good, it should have no problem making a profit. Ghosts are an easier sell than done-to-death underdog stories about racer snails, anyway.

But Kung Fu Panda 3 opens five days after Episode VII. Episode VII will obviously appeal to everyone: Families, children, adults, teen moviegoers and everyone else in-between. Kung Fu Panda 3, like any good animated film, is aimed at the whole family as well along with mass audiences in general (no, not just children - contrary to stupid popular belief)… Having it open so close to such a hugely, no scratch that… Enormously anticipated film that's going to appeal to everyone is not a smart move.

DreamWorks needs to move it… But to where, is the question.

November 2015 is already loaded. Blue Sky's Peanuts, also distributed by Fox, is staying where it is (November 6th) since it may be a holiday-themed film and it is celebrating the 50th anniversary of A Charlie Brown Christmas. Pixar's The Good Dinosaur? Forget it, that's not moving, and that was delayed from a summer 2014 release!

September? Nahhh, Hotel Transylvania 2 is opening in the late spot that Sony Animation made successful for themselves.

DreamWorks also won't open a movie so close to another one of their own films, when it almost happened, it never did. Summer's too crowded as it is, and February is also taken by Paramount Animation's SpongeBob sequel… Unless they opt for another weekend, but for something like this?

If another, DreamWorks ought to be brave and try October. That's right, October.

I don't buy the whole "everything outside of May-July and November-December is the dumping ground" theory. If you release a damn good movie anytime, with the right marketing behind it, it'll do well. Just look at Gravity… The little October release that's on its way to gross $250 million domestically and possibly over $600 million worldwide.

Maybe it's time that the studios start looking into the other months. I also don't buy the "kids are in school" excuse, because Sony's animated films did well in the late September spots. Kung Fu Panda 3 can be a good-sized hit in October, because it'll have a lot of room to breathe and it'll continue to do well when Peanuts and The Good Dinosaur open, Star Wars: Episode VII on the other hand… Just… Not a good idea. Then Mission: Impossible 5 opens two days later. It's in trouble...

While the film will no doubt do well overseas, it needs to do well here. Kung Fu Panda 2 unfortunately lost a chunk of potential moviegoers because Paramount released it the same day as The Hangover Part II, which stole most of the teen and adult audience. Don't forget the lazy marketing campaign and general lack of hype. I'm hoping Fox corrects those errors for this third film; but the thing is, it's great that it is happening. Kung Fu Panda 2 managed to get sturdy legs and climbed to $165 million domestically, though logically it should've greatly increased from the original - perhaps even crack $300 million domestically.

Anyways, if DreamWorks wants the best possible success, then they should shoot for mid-October. April isn't wise, because The Avengers: Age of Ultron will annihilate it a few weeks later. May is off-limits, ditto July.

October 2015 it should be. What do you think? Do you think it's fine where it is? Or should it move? If not October, then where? Sound off below!

"Free Birds" Doesn't Fly

Reel FX's foray into the world of feature animation opened rather softly… But it is in good shape...

With an unremarkable marketing campaign behind it, Free Birds had a hard time appealing to audiences. It looked too cutesy and inconsequential for adults; others balked at the plot, fearing that it was vegetarian and/or liberal propaganda. (This happens to animation quite a lot, doesn't it?) It grossed a pretty weak $16 million over the weekend, but since it has most of November to itself until Frozen hits theaters, it should grow some legs and make like other animated films that opened with around the same amount.

Fortunately for Reel FX, Free Birds only cost $35 million to make. I admire the studio's strategy, because the animation in the film does look pretty good for something made with that amount of money. Unfortunately, the film was panned by critics and received a particularly toxic 21% on Rotten Tomatoes. But that doesn't matter, because Reel FX shows that they have good talent there and their next slate of films will be a bit more on the experimental side.

From day one, I figured that they would do something like Free Birds first. It was pretty safe, it was marketable, it had enough cutesy characters and wacky humor to satisfy kids and possibly their parents. It looked like your typical animated film from the previous trailer, but now that it's out of the way, they can move on to more ambitious stuff. I mean, you can't tell me that The Book of Life doesn't at least sound interesting. Stylistically and story-wise, it's a real 180 from this film and we haven't even seen any footage yet. It doesn't sound like something many of the big studios are thinking of making, like I said a few months back, it seems more in line with Rango than anything. Beasts and Burden happens to be based on a graphic novel that isn't really family-friendly, so you can't say that they don't have any ambitions.

If somebody else like Illumination took on The Book of Life, it would be a pretty big risk given the fact that they spend more on their features. But since Reel FX isn't doing that, a project like that is perfectly suited for them. Like I said, we need more small studios experimenting because with a lower budget, they have something of a safety net if things do not go over too well. LAIKA's Coraline made a decent amount, but it didn't have a huge marketing campaign behind it. Not too many major tie-ins and whatnot. Meanwhile, a studio like Illumination has outlets like IHOP and McDonald's to please in addition to doubling the production budget. This film really only had promotional tie-ins with Chuck E. Cheese's of all things. (After all, Reel FX created the current version of Chuck E. Cheese himself.)

So a sort of lower budget, not too hyped up animated film is ideal in today's animation world - especially with some films from the big guns underperforming. We need more studios like Reel FX making these kinds of films, it's good for the industry, it gets animators jobs and it can blossom some game-changing stuff. LAIKA already succeeded, Rango was the rare case where something experimental was big budget, released by a major distributor and backed with a big marketing campaign. Free Birds is apparently not an earth-shattering film that will change mainstream animation as we know it, but The Book of Life sounds like it could definitely be. Ditto Beasts of Burden and W.I.S.H. Police. Like I said, they got the safe, market-friendly film out of the way so they can tackle the riskier stuff.

I wouldn't be surprised if The Book of Life brings about some big changes for mainstream animation. In the mean time, Free Birds ought to make a tidy profit before Frozen comes crashing in. I have not seen the film so I can't say whether the critics are right or if it's actually decent, but it should be a success. Thus, we can get the real goods from this growing studio.

Animation Box Office Update (October 2013)

We are now in a rather slow month for box office, though this month may be blockbuster month one day thanks to the success of Alfonso Cauron's Gravity - which I finally saw yesterday and greatly admired -  and we'll start seeing bigger films open during this month. Heck, it may be ripe for big animated films! LAIKA and Reel FX could make that month a goldmine, amongst other studios...

Anyways, The Croods and Epic aren't playing anymore. Both distributed by Fox, the former was a big hit and a box office bounce back for DreamWorks, the latter did adequately but was overall an underperformer. The Croods had all of March, April and May to itself before Blue Sky's little forest people flick showed up, thus allowing it to grow very strong legs and gross north of $187 million stateside. It was a real success story worldwide, with a hefty overseas gross (not bad for an original animated film!) making for a grand total of $585 million. Turbo raced into theaters next and sadly, didn't win any races. DreamWorks suffered another loss with this one, as it has taken in $82 million domestically and so far, $224 million worldwide. It recently opened in the UK and other European markets, but it won't help it in the end. Since DreamWorks considered Rise of the Guardians - which actually doubled its $145 million production budget - a bomb, this is an even bigger loss.

Thankfully Epic wasn't as costly, the $93 million film managed to scoop up $259 million worldwide - a decent little hit for Fox and Blue Sky. It did very well in home media sales on its first week out, so that's a plus. I think this one didn't take off for a number of reasons. Opening it against Fast & Furious 6 and The Hangover Part III ensured that no teens would find themselves seeing it, and since the film seemed to appeal more to kids than adults, legs weren't as strong. It didn't help that Monsters University was also right around the corner, along with another big smash. It's also kind of unfortunate because animated films based on William Joyce's books or ideas never seem to gel at the box office. That's mostly marketing's fault, anyway...

Monsters University was expectedly big, being a Pixar film. Its $82 million opening was great, but legs were weaker than usual this time around - probably due to Despicable Me 2's unstoppable Minionmania and possibly underwhelming word of mouth from the adult crowd, either that or it didn't appeal to families as much. It's a bit of a conundrum right now, but Despicable Me 2 may ultimately be the reason why Monsters University didn't grow the typical Pixar legs and gross anywhere near $300 million stateside. Attendance-wise, it's a bit low on the Pixar list, clocking in at #10 out of 14. Still, $267 million is not too shabby and $737 million worldwide is pretty damn big.

But my goodness, Despicable Me 2... In a matter of hours, this thing will have made more than $900 million at the worldwide box office - and its domestic total was no average one. This was the first animated film since Toy Story 3 to make over $300 million at the domestic box office, showing that animation is huge hit material when done and marketed right. All it needs to do is beat Shrek 2 and it's the world's second highest grossing animated feature (not counting re-released films, i.e. The Lion King) behind Toy Story 3... It only makes me wonder how much Minions and the inevitable Despicable Me 3 will make. (Unless the novelty wears off by 2015...)

I bet Illumination, a relative newcomer no less, is very happy. Four consecutive hits, all profitable, and one of which is not only the second highest grossing animated film ever but also the most profitable film ever released by its distributor.

What about the annoying little blue pests? The Smurfs 2 has only taken in $70 million domestically thanks to a very bad opening weekend, and not-so-great word of mouth. Planes got in the way, the first film had the luxury of having all of August, September and October to itself. It only just proves that animation isn't a kiddie thing and kids-only animation isn't surefire box office gold. Despicable Me 2 made $300 million because of adults and teens, not just kids and their parents. But those who are ignorant towards animation won't realize that...

Planes also underwhelmed on opening weekend, being a kids-only film. Adults and animation fans swiftly avoided the cash-grab spin-off of the Cars series, and apparently the bad critical reception did little help to entice anyone with some interest in the film. But Planes had all of August and most of September to itself, the little film has crept up on $88 million domestically and $191 million worldwide - exactly what Disney wanted. I won't be surprised if the second one underperforms next summer, though right now it has little-to-no competition. Kids and families seem to be there when there's nothing else playing, hence something like Escape from Planet Earth having good legs at the box office.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 stayed flat, opening with a little more than what its predecessor pulled in back in 2009. However, the legs aren't as good. Still, it's on track to make more than $110 million domestically. Animation isn't in any slump, hopefully this film's success will teach our seemingly animation-averse press that.

So now that leaves Free Birds and Frozen. One's obviously going to be a hit (now that Disney marketing served up an excellent trailer last week), the other could go either way. The marketing for Free Birds - handled by distributor Relativity Media - is pretty slipshod, resorting to the usual "From the producer of Shrek" devices, touting the cast and putting out posters with lame-o puns next to the character profiles. I enjoyed the teaser trailer, but I felt that the second trailer was pretty bad. I have a feeling the film won't be anything like what it's making it out to be. (Apparently this one has quite a different sense of humor.)

Free Birds will probably open with above $20 million, since the marketing is at least making it look like a treat for family audiences whilst also playing up the Thanksgiving angle. In fact, I'd be curious to know how many people avoid it, thinking it's a 90-minute PETA commercial. The legs will definitely be cut off by Frozen, which by now should open with at least $45 million. (Boxoffice.com seems to think that it'll open with $38 million, their reasoning being the lack of big name voice actors and the "animation slump". Ugh...)

So far, 2013 has had its ups and down. Two films were big, one was a surprise success and the rest... Well I think this year has taught a valuable lesson: It's high time the studios start aiming for unique films, whilst also attempting to get more adults into the theater. Not everything has to be a cutesy family comedy. Rango did it two years ago, now it's time for some exciting originals like The BoxTrolls, The Book of Life and 2015's eclectic batch of animated features to change the mainstream animation field...

I Wanna See That!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marketing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audiences Eat "Cloudy 2" Up

So movie press, is there an "animation curse"? Are audiences getting tired of animated feature films? Nope... Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 did well - as expected - over the weekend...

Taking in an estimated $35 million, this start was $2 million higher than the adjusted opening weekend total of the first film. It didn't decrease from the original like some animated sequels tend to do, but it didn't make a whole lot more either (I had predicted somewhere around $45 million).

It has all of October to itself to grow legs and gross over $100 million domestically - the first animated film since Despicable Me 2 to do so. Of course, we all know that Turbo, The Smurfs 2 and Planes missed that threshold for multiple reasons. Of course, our press bends over backwards and just assumes that there's a glut of animated features, or that audiences are tired of animation and that it's becoming box office poison. Of course, they probably never really considered animation to be anything more than kids stuff so they wouldn't know...

Anyways, it's a decent opening and the film will make back that $78 million budget in no time. Win-win for Sony, win-win for the American animation industry at the box office and win-win for those who saw it and enjoyed it.

I just find it surprising that it couldn't outgross non-sequel Hotel Transylvania's opening weekend take. That film keeps the crown for biggest September opening, I was thinking that this would easily beat that. Regardless, $35 million is still a solid start for this film.

Update: The actual gross is $34 million. Still solid...

August Animation Tidbits

More tidbits for ya...

Planes once again proves that animated films that don't have much adult appeal won't fare too, too well. Planes is unabashedly a children's film, so it didn't set the box office on fire over the weekend unlike something like Monsters University or Despicable Me 2. You know, animation that's both for kids and adults.

But others (such as are ever-so-accurate press) would lead you to believe that Turbo, The Smurfs 2 and Planes underperformed because there's "too much animation", implying that people are getting sick of feature animation... No, they are getting sick of bland animation and animation that's aimed at kids only... Plus, with all these films opening so close to each other, families got super-choosy. I hope this summer teaches distributors a lesson: Don't open so many animated films so close to each other. 2 or 3 is fine, but 5 or more? A big no-no.

Opening with a small $22 million, Planes already made Disney very happy since the film only cost $50 million to produce. Plus, it's bound to make a good amount overseas given some foreign locations they cover in this film. All I can say is... Ehhhhhhhhhh. Why oh why does the sequel have to be a theatrical release?

~

DreamWorks, in a rather surprising move, pushed their highly anticipated How To Train Your Dragon 2 a week forward. The film is now set to open on June 13, 2014, but honestly... I can kind of see Kung Fu Panda 2 happening all over again. Sort of.

If you remember, Paramount and DreamWorks for some reason felt that the sequel to their 2008 blockbuster would put up a good fight against The Hangover Part II. But what happened? The teens and adults flocked to The Hangover Part II, leaving Kung Fu Panda 2 to rely on family audiences and those who have no interest in The Hangover franchise... The result was a very disappointing $47 million opening while The Hangover Part II took in $85 million for the weekend. Its opening was certainly no major take off, especially when you consider that its predecessor opened 3 years earlier with $60 million... Without 3D ticket prices!

What opens the same weekend as How To Train Your Dragon 2? 22 Jump Street...

Let's see... A sequel to a sleeper hit R-rated comedy? Need I say more?

How To Train Your Dragon 2's opening may not be spectacular unless Fox plays their cards right. The teaser for this was fabulous, unlike the lazy "staring contest" teaser for Kung Fu Panda 2. Its official trailer better deliver and make audiences want to see it opening weekend, because Kung Fu Panda 2's underwhelming trailers and marketing didn't succeed in doing that. Hopefully Fox's marketing shows audiences why they should definitely see DreamWorks' epic sequel to their very good film and make the audiences think, "Hmmm... Yeah I'll see that instead of 22 Jump Street!"

I mean, this is supposed to be a very big follow-up to the leggy original. The original was lucky to have many weeks all to itself, so that the incredibly strong word-of-mouth was able to help the film climb to $200 million at the domestic box office. This sequel underperforming and making less would be terrible, especially since it's supposed to be like the series' Empire Strikes Back. I wouldn't doubt that, because DreamWorks went the darker route for their sequel to Kung Fu Panda but yet the poor handled of that stalled it from doing better than its predecessor at the box office. Let's hope the same mistakes aren't made again with this sequel, because DreamWorks needs a big hit and I don't quite think Mr. Peabody & Sherman will be a box office bonanza.

But apparently Fox and DreamWorks are confident in this, so it's possible that the dragons may outwit the cops that summer weekend. Personally, I think these poor choices of release dates are what's are partially killing most animated films these days. (Bolt and Winnie the Pooh, anyone?)

~

On the home media front, we got word of the postponed Tom and Jerry Golden Collection Volume 2 set. In case you didn't know, this series was meant to give us - the animation enthusiast - the complete, fully uncensored collection of the entire Tom and Jerry filmography from the Golden Age to the post-Hanna-Barbera films. Volume 1 delivered the goods and then some, everything on there was uncensored and there were even a couple lovely bonus features.

But this upcoming set is a disaster in the making. Warner Bros. legal department will not allow two particular Tom and Jerry cartoons to be released in any form. The problem is, both are supposed to be on Volume Two since the series is going in chronological order. Mouse Cleaning and Casanova Cat are the two shorts in question. The legal department want to avoid a PR nightmare, but they are hypocrites because Warner Bros. has released material that's just as offensive for general consumers, from the uncensored Looney Tunes collections to the uncensored Popeye sets to the first volume of this series... And they all have warnings saying that they're for the "adult collector", and they also give viewers an explanation of the content in these films: Again, some of the certain gags in these shorts are offensive, but censoring them out is just as offensive. They're a part of history. The first set and all their other adult-oriented cartoon collections from Warner make this very, very clear.

However, WB's legal department doesn't want these two particular shorts to see the light of day for some probably stupid reason, not even through the WB Archive, thus contradicting everything the other sets stood for. So we can't have those two shorts on an "adult collector" set, but yet we can have other offensive material. The legal department apparently thinks that we're children or something.

Let that all sink in for a minute...

PR nightmare, alright. They created a new one just by playing this game with us. We're adults, we know why these cartoons are the way are, so stop trying to hide them from us when you've released other equally offensive cartoons to general consumers, general consumers! Anyone who has seen Mouse Cleaning and Casanova Cat will tell you that they are no more offensive than The Milky Waif and The Truce Hurts, or any other Tom and Jerry cartoon with a blackface gag that's readily available uncensored in the US for general consumers. Warner Home Video really wants all of these pieces of history to be released, but no, the legal department has something against those two particular shorts...

Anyways, this pointless and unfair censorship lead to (much-deserved) backlash, and it's made the news, too! The set was then postponed, though a December 17th date somehow got out there. Jerry Beck (in case you don't know, he's a great animation historian and has worked on many of these sets, including this one) appeared on Stu's Show not too long ago. The set was brought up and he outright confirmed that WB's legal department is giving Warner Home Video trouble, and they're not going to let those two cartoons see any form of release in America (note: They're available uncensored in the UK). He says that we shouldn't expect the set until 2014 at the least. I'm not holding my breath for a complete set.

Insert rant here...

~

Speaking of home media, on October 15th, the surprisingly very good and well-written Disney Channel animated series Gravity Falls will be hitting some form of home media... Unfortunately, it's a DVD-only release with six episodes. "Six Strange Tales"... Yeah, because we can't have our full season just yet. Or ever, maybe... Given Disney's track record when it comes to these things.

If Warner Bros. and Cartoon Network can give us the full seasons of shows like Adventure Time and Regular Show, Disney can damn well do the same for Gravity Falls. Heck, where are the full season sets for Phineas and Ferb?! What they're failing to realize is that like those two Cartoon Network shows, Gravity Falls has a teenaged and adult fanbase that makes it very successful. People would also scoop up a season boxset of Phineas and Ferb, from families to fans to many others. However, it is possible that this is a set geared towards the kids and that they're saving the goods for the fans. (Making this show an exception to their TV shows on home media business model.)

Well, maybe. Here's hoping they do the same for TRON: Uprising, since they did a good job sending that show to the grave. At least Blu-ray sales or the fact that it's on Netflix could gain the series new fans... Though the third TRON film doesn't seem to be a go anytime soon. Director Joseph Kosinski has signed on to direct The Twilight Zone movie. Looks like that franchise is slowing down once again...

~

Animated Views recently interviewed Jimmy Hayward and Aron Warner. Hayward, as you may know, is the director of Reel FX Creative Studios' debut theatrical feature-length animated film Free Birds (formerly known as Turkeys), which will hit theaters on November 1st. Warner is a big-time producer, and he's well-known for producing the Shrek films, as Free Birds' fun trailer mentions.

Hayward talked about some of its production history, and also said that the film's plot is "all in good fun" and that they aren't trying to send some PETA-esque "don't eat turkey" message. (Phew!) He also explained the title change, saying that they wanted something that would have international appeal. Then he also explained the release date change, the movie was pretty much in the can last summer and November 2014 was too much of a family film mine (Big Hero 6, Home, Night at the Museum 3, etc.)

Warner talked about Reel FX's plans, things I speculated about months ago. I'm in support of this studio because they've got risky things planned for the future (Hayward himself elaborated on that), and they also plan on spending reasonable budgets on their films. Hmmmm, maybe other studios should follow suit, yes? For the record, Free Birds has pretty good-looking animation if you ask me. See, I like this idea. Lower budgets mean greater risks can be taken, LAIKA and Aardman don't thrive for nothing.

He also mentioned a few things about Jorge Guiterrez's Book of Life...

"The movie is unlike any computer animated film I’ve ever seen. It looks different; it feels different; it sounds different. It’s definitely Jorge’s – it is so much a project from this guy’s heart."

Now see? That's what studios should be doing, making lower budget films that take some major-league creative risks. Book of Life might just change the industry if Free Birds is a hit, and prove that good computer animation can be done for less than $100 million and it doesn't have to come from someone like Disney, Pixar or DreamWorks. Again, Free Birds looks fun despite some formulaic elements, but it's a safer film for a reason. It's the debut, it's the kick-off feature. Safe film first, risks later!

No word on Beasts of Burden, though...

~

What do you think of Reel FX? Do you think the studio has a lot of potential? Do you anticipate what they have to offer? Do you think Disney will eventually give us season box sets of shows like Gravity Falls, Phineas and Ferb and TRON: Uprising? Do you think Warner Home Video will triumph over the legal department? Or will they lose and all we'll end up getting is a censored set? Do you think DreamWorks and Fox moving How To Train Your Dragon 2 up a week was a good idea, or not?

Sound off below!

For Future Reference...

Well, the summer animation battle has pretty much come to a close. Yes, Planes might have been out for ten days, but it's pretty much over... So, what are the results and what can they teach distributors in the far future?

The Hollywood Reporter's click-bait title of an otherwise okay box office article would lead you to believe that there was an animation "curse". The Los Angeles Times also gets it dead wrong with their headline, suggesting that the recent string of duds is the result of the amount of animated features out there rather than the quality. Hollywood cranking out too many? Think again.

When will people realize that animated films that bomb do so for a good reason? Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 is more than going to make these people eat their words (pun shamelessly intended), as its inevitably going to be a big hit. Why's that? It's a sequel to a film that critics loved, audiences of all ages loved and one that's just well-known. The sequel is being marketed right, and many are excited for it. It's clearing $120 million this autumn, guaranteed.

So with that, let's look at the last 5 animated releases...

Monsters University kicked things off to a good start after Epic quietly walked out of the gate (a film that was saddled with its own problems, its performance doesn't really have too much to do with its scheduling), with a big $82 million, certainly a good-sized debut for a Pixar film. So this film was on its way to $300 million domestically, right? Well, along came the minions. Despicable Me 2 opened with $83 million and got an even bigger boost from its Wednesday opening, and in no time in passed $300 million at the domestic box office - the first animated film to do so since Toy Story 3! It will end up with a sub-$400 million gross, which is great for this sequel. Universal calls it their most profitable release ever...

But did Monsters University and Despicable Me 2 perform well together? Well... Sort of... Monsters University, by the time its out of theaters, will have scored below a 3.3x multiplier. That's one above the lowest for a Pixar film: Cars 2. I think Minionmania really sucked the audiences away from Pixar's prequel, plus it's possible that families gravitated towards the Illumination film because Monsters University certainly was one of Pixar's quieter films, one that didn't have a lot of action or spectacle. Despicable Me 2 on the other hand had the laughs, but also the minions, lots of fun action and everything else. Perhaps Monsters University was released a little too close to Despicable Me 2, which was undeniably going to be a titan.

However, both films did very good and that's all that matters. Both were highly anticipated, both delivered, and both certainly appealed to audiences enough. The next three films... Well, that's a different story.

I will give props to Fox marketing for this...

Turbo was shackled by its concept and the marketing didn't differentiate it from everything else, plus it was opening inside the Despicable Me 2 tidal wave. The Smurfs 2 had little to no adult appeal, plus families already saw three other films before it. Had it opened in August, maybe it would've done a little better. Planes? Obviously that wasn't going to be big to begin with.

You need to give adults and teenagers a reason to go see your animated film, and that also includes parents who might not want to subject themselves to something like The Smurfs 2 in the theater. You not only have to have one that's good for them, but you need to make it look good to them. Monsters University is a prequel to a beloved animated classic that adults and children adore. Despicable Me 2 is a sequel to a recent animated hit that both adults and children loved. No surprise those two did very well, and they are the first animated films to cross the $250 million mark since the original Despicable Me... Three summers ago!

It all boils down to the content of the films, the marketing and timing. Perhaps if these studios spaced their films out a bit more, I think all of them would've done okay business. Why wasn't something like Epic or Turbo an autumn release? Or a Christmas release? What about... Mid-August?

Now, what does this mean for the future?

2015 is crammed. Monster Trucks kicks off a similarly large animation battle that'll end in late July with the Smurfs three-quel. I think this isn't going to be pretty, and many other planned 2015 animation releases haven't even been scheduled yet, such as Aardman's Shaun the Sheep, Rainmaker's Ratchet & Clank and if one is coming, a Planes three-quel. (Going by what Blue Sky Disney's Honor Hunter said recently, there will be definitely be a third one.) That year's holiday season is going to get a bit hairy as well.

Which makes me wonder, how come studios aren't spacing their work out a little more? Shouldn't someone opt for an August release? Or an April one? I don't know, it just seems like a couple of them may underperform because they're being released so close to each other. We also don't know what the quality be like on films like Monster Trucks and B.O.O.. Also, 20th Century Fox's plans to open their own animated releases on the same days/months as some Disney or Pixar films (i.e. Blue Sky's Peanuts vs. Finding Dory in 2015, How To Train Your Dragon 3 vs. Dia De Los Muertos in summer 2016) could possibly backfire, or their plans to release them very close to whatever Disney or Pixar is releasing. People will go see the films that will appeal to them the most.

But aside from the timing, we need better quality films from all the studios and a much more diverse selection of films. I know that's a lot to ask for, but you can't just throw a cute family-friendly animated film out there expecting it to do well just because it's cute and it'll appeal to family audiences. You need to get the adults in the theater too! To do so, you got to make a film that will appeal to them or market it so that it will appeal to them!

Next year might just prove my point, look at what we're getting: The Lego Movie, Mr. Peabody & Sherman, The Good Dinosaur, How To Train Your Dragon 2, Big Hero 6. To me, those movies are guaranteed hits because they'll appeal to adults and some of them are sequels to beloved films (How To Train Your Dragon 2 might just pull a Despicable Me 2 next summer), and there's potential money to be made in films like Mr. Peabody & Sherman and Rio 2. The Boxtrolls and Book of Life are the risky types, but I've rambled about this before - we need to make these films successful. Things people should get excited about after seeing a trailer or commercial. It's time we really make more kinds of animated films successful with mainstream audiences, in theaters! More adults-only animation! A diverse selection of animated films from the big studios! Family films, adult films, independent films! Animation is more than just family films and silly comedies. That's another story, though...

So yeah, maybe some studios might want to look into the quality of their films and the timing. Some studios might want to try something new and not follow a formula. Not to sound like a broken record here, but look! Rango did it!

In the mean time... Shut up, press. And to the LA Times writer, animation is not genre. How many times does it have to be said?