Rebooting and Rehashing

It seems like Disney is planning on re-imagining a lot of stories that they have already adapted for their animated classics in the past... As big budget live action tentpoles...

Alice in Wonderland happened to be the first in this new trend, which happened to come out during what many people called the perfect storm. Everyone got a real taste of 3D with Avatar, a film they kept going back to see for the sheer experience. This film being in 3D was already a guarantee for success, then you add in excellent marketing (I mean, excellent marketing) and decent word of mouth. I mean, this film looked great. It was Tim Burton making Alice in Wonderland, I mean come on... Who didn't want to see that? Even if the film didn't look good, the novelty was there: A big budget Alice in Wonderland. The marketing really did its job! The film grossed an enormous $334 million domestically and $1 billion all across the world. Did anyone see that coming? Did Disney even see that coming?

Three years later, Disney scored a good-sized success with a similar film. Oz The Great and Powerful has taken in $234 million here so far and $491 million worldwide, but before that film opened, we saw other classic stories and fairy tales getting big adaptations that were geared more towards teenagers than family audiences: Snow White and the Huntsman and Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. In addition to that, we also got television shows such as Once Upon a Time.

Disney has more coming. Maleficent opens next summer on July 2nd, followed by a Kenneth Branagh-directed Cinderella film in March 2015. A Beauty and the Beast live action film titled The Beast is currently in development as we speak, which should be out by 2017 or 2018. Alice and Oz are getting sequels, but no dates have been picked yet.

So today, Disney announced that a live action film based on Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book is in the works.

It's a pretty odd choice considering that Disney already did a live action Jungle Book adaptation. Titled Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book, the rather well-received film opened in 1994 and didn't really make much of a mark at the domestic box office.

Anyways, screenwriter Justin Marks will pen this adaptation... The Justin Marks who wrote Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li, but he also wrote some short films so Disney must've brought him on board for a reason. Right now, I'm just not feeling it. Then again, I'm frustrated with this new direction Disney has been taking for their non-Marvel/Lucasfilm live action slate.

I mean, I can understand Cinderella and The Beast, but now they're going to adapt more stories that were already the basis for their animated classics. What's next? A live action The Little Mermaid? A live action The Hunchback of Notre Dame? Alright I'll stop there, because I'm probably giving them ideas. Anyways, while the slate includes some original stuff (Brad Bird's Tomorrowland and the enigmatic Terra Incognita) and properties that Disney has never touched before (such as Matched and Alexander and the Horrible, Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Day), there's also...

- Peter and the Starcatchers (based on a prequel novel series to Peter Pan)
- Pete's Dragon
- Flight of the Navigator
- The Rocketeer

Why is Disney rebooting/remaking/re-imagining stories they've tackled before? Do we really need a remake of Pete's Dragon? Or Flight of the Navigator? Did we really even need to live action Cinderella and Beast films that are coming out?

Meanwhile, Disney suffers a loss with The Lone Ranger and The Wrap puts this boneheaded article up...

First of all, John Carter and The Lone Ranger weren't "original". The former is based on a series of novels by the legendary Edgar Rice Burroughs and the other is based on a multi-media series that dates back to the 1930s.

Second of all, why should Disney stick to the tried and true? Why should they only rely on Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm? Why should they "forget" trying something different? By that, I mean something they have never adapted or tried out before. Case in point, John Carter and The Lone Ranger. This year's Oz did very well, and the article actually acknowledges that. Walt always said, "You can't top pigs with pigs".

Third... John Carter was backed by terrible marketing and a terrible title all due to a Chairman who just didn't care and many other things. How many times do we have to go over this?! On the flip side of that coin, The Lone Ranger's trailers didn't give you an idea of what the film was even about. The trailers, to me, showed something convoluted that just happened to have a lot of wild west action. Also, aren't people getting sick of quasi-Jack Sparrow characters played by Johnny Depp? Especially in films from the same people who made those films? Everyone was saying it... It's Pirates in the West!

And of course, the article pretty much says that Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm (notice how they conveniently leave out Walt Disney Animation Studios) are all what Disney needs. They really don't, because their live action division gave them a hit this year. That's right, a hit. Outside of Pirates, you also had hits like the first Narnia, the National Treasure films and smaller-scale films that turned a profit. Sure, Disney might've had losses with a couple live action films (aside from Carter and Ranger, Prince of Persia underwhelmed and The Sorcerer's Apprentice was a dud) as of late, but that's no reason to give up hope.

What if their 2014 live action crop does well? What if everything from Maleficent to Tomorrowland to Into The Woods all do well and make a profit?

You can't just say Disney should stop with fresh new things for live action tentpoles. Carter and Ranger were killed by marketing, ditto Prince of Persia and The Sorcerer's Apprentice (and both of those Bruckheimer films were duds). Had Disney opted for a campaign for The Lone Ranger that said more about the story and the characters, perhaps it would've done solid business over the last week instead of missing the $50 million mark for the five-day opening.

Then you also got to think of quality and what you're giving an audience that consists of all ages. Films with lazy storytelling that happen to have spectacle and action aren't going to cut it, it only works for things like Transformers... But not films like Battleship. Audiences won't eat up every big budget special effects spectacle you throw at them. Family audiences are also paying for films with the Disney name on them in addition to many moviegoing adults. Having not seen the film yet, I've heard that it's a bore with a convoluted, messy story that's surprisingly very dark. With today's ultra-high ticket prices, Disney needs to give the crowds what they need. Something that doesn't miss the mark. Apparently The Lone Ranger was not just that. Neither was Prince of Persia or The Sorcerer's Apprentice. John Carter's length and convoluted storyline (I think the film is good, though) might've been too much for audiences as well. Also note that I don't think that Disney should pander to audiences, at all. I am very much against that, but they're a big corporation and they have to hit it right with each film. Something like The Lone Ranger and John Carter (the way they are) would probably be more suitable under something else.

Which leads me to ask this - and I had discussed this topic with a few others weeks ago - should Disney save PG-13 tentpole films for their Touchstone banner?

From what I've heard, The Lone Ranger is pretty damn violent for a PG-13 film. I also hear that it takes a Dudley Do-Right character (I'm not familiar with anything that has to do with The Lone Ranger) and turns him into a rather dark one, one that's not a hero who does the right thing. I'm not a "think of the children!" type of person, but I assume that many parents took their young 'uns to see this film over the weekend and might've been offended by the violence and/or gritty tone. When something from Disney sports violence that's said to be borderline R-rating level, that's not good. That can severely hurt the film's performance, but having the Disney name attached to this PG-13 tentpole might've done no favors.

The fact is, many people have an idea of what Disney entertainment should be. The Lone Ranger doesn't seem to fit the bill, which brings up the question: What if The Lone Ranger was a Touchstone film? The Touchstone name may not be easily recognizable though, since everyone (even those who live under a proverbial rock) knows what Disney is. Then again, without the Disney name, perhaps the film could've attracted more teenagers and adults because some of them might sneer at the idea of Disney making PG-13 live action films... Unless they're Pirates sequels, then that's totally okay, but anything else? "Why is Disney trying to be badass?! Laaaaaaame!"

In fact, it's the PG-13 films that are usually not doing well for them these days. Prince of Persia, John Carter and this film were all PG-13. Oz wasn't, neither were the National Treasure films, the first Narnia film (Prince Caspian's PG rating was always questioned), TRON: Legacy or anything else besides the Pirates films. The Pirates films are just rare exceptions, but nothing else that comes from the Mouse House seems to be when it comes to that rating.

But back to The Lone Ranger. Suppose it was a Touchstone release and Disney didn't spend $215 million on it. Let's just say that the film we got the other day cost $140 million to make and opened with the Touchstone logo, backed with marketing that still said "From the team that brought you Pirates of the Caribbean". I think it would've done better, as it didn't cost as much and the film would've performed a bit better. $50 million so far this kind of film isn't too bad, actually... It just happens to be a $215 million tentpole from mega-empire Disney! Seriously, this film could've been made for $140 million. I've seen $50-100 million films that look just as good!

Had it a been a bit smaller-scale (same great effects, but no towering budget) and released by Touchstone, Disney could have made a profit since it's already bound to make at least $100 million domestically and over $300 million worldwide. That, to me, would've really covered losses. It would've been perfect timing too, since Westerns have made a comeback at the box office. Just look at True Grit, Rango and Django Unchained. This could've rode on the coattails of those successes.

This could've worked for John Carter as well: $150 million budget, original John Carter of Mars title, better marketing and the Touchstone banner. Could've been less of a disaster or better yet, a profitable title. Bad marketing and all, John Carter still grossed $280 million worldwide. That's not horrible, you know. It could've made even less given the toxic buzz...

No, Disney shouldn't just give up on fresh new things for their live action tentpoles. Instead, they should seek solutions: Don't spend a crapload of money on the films (The Lone Ranger did not need to cost $215 million, or $250 million!) and release them through another outlet, which could ensure a small success. Other tentpoles from other studios based on books are going to do well (for the most part) because of familiarity. Disney happened to lose money with two films based on properties that are a little out of reach. What casual moviegoer who is under the age of 30 will be familiar with anything that has to do with Barsoom? The Lone Ranger? That's something their grandparents might've told them about years ago. I applaud Disney for at least trying with John Carter and The Lone Ranger, but the studio went about both the wrong way, from the ballooning budgets to the poor marketing.

Also, John Carter and The Lone Ranger shouldn't be used an excuse to state "Disney should give this original film thing up". Let's take a look at next year's slate of live action films that aren't Marvel, nor are they reboots of things they already did (i.e. Maleficent). We got...

Need for Speed - I get it, this is Touchstone, but there's one question: How much will be spent on this film? Hopefully not too, too much. I expect a budget of under $150 million, or maybe they'll go small-scale.

Alexander and the Horrible, Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Day - This small film reminds me of The Odd Life of Timothy Green, which was actually a film that was based on an original story rather than a children's book or whatever. That film cost $25 million to make, not bad... With very little marketing, it opened with $10 million. Now, its critical reception was very divided. Some thought it was mediocre, others really loved it. The film scored the rare 5x multiplier... Not many family films these days get that during the spring and summer. Family audiences must've loved it that much. The film took in $51 million overall and doubled the budget.

This film, on the other hand, is based on a book. I suspect that Disney didn't market Timothy Green that much because it was a leftover from the Rich Ross era (though it was greenlit when Dick Cook was still Chairman) and they just wanted to get it out of the way, knowing it would still do okay at the box office... And that it did! Anyways, Disney will probably put the same effort into marketing this... Or more. In any case, it'll do fine.

Tomorrowland - A Brad Bird film that's not based on a well-known and/or existing story? An original film? You don't say! Anyways, Disney needs to play their cards right here. Big time! This is opening against crazy competition and it's original. When I think of this film's box office chances, I think of Inception: Not based on anything, different, interesting and directed by a well-known force. Warner Bros. was incredibly smart to put "From the director of The Dark Knight" in the Inception trailers, and it ensured a big opening. Word of mouth was incredibly strong, carrying the film past $290 million domestically. I remember a time when $300 million predictions for this film were shot down for being too optimistic.

Anyways, Disney better market this right. The previews must make you say "I want to see that!" Trailers must mention Brad Bird's achievements if it's a PG-rated film. If it's PG-13, they might have to omit any references to Bird's Pixar films since Disney avoided mentioning Finding Nemo and WALL-E in the John Carter trailers, because, you know... A lot of people still look down on animation. Or, it could work because I notice a lot of people really love Brad Bird. To the point where they wanted him to direct Episode VII! I don't ever hear that same love directed at Pete Docter or Andrew Stanton or any other animation directors, really. Sadly, a lot of animation directors seem to be relatively unknown. Bird is a borderline household name like Spielberg and Lucas.

If the film flops, it won't be because it's original or risky. It'll be because Disney did something wrong: Either the marketing was bad or the budget was ridiculously high, or maybe the film was just bad. Maybe it'll be the filmmakers fault, but I highly doubt it since Brad Bird shouldn't ever really be doubted.

Into The Woods - I think this one has holiday hit written all over. To explain, it's the kind of film that opens small, gets a boatload of buzz and climbs it way up the charts at the box office. Again, Disney needs to do things right. By that, I mean not spend too much on it and also market it correctly! Again, it could be a big big hit if they do things right.

See where I'm going with this? This applies to all other future tentpoles that aren't based on anything they did before. Disney ultimately has to do it right: No super-high budgets, marketing that makes the films look like they're worth seeing (i.e. films that'll easily make $50 million over the weekend), and better handling of the films. Oh, and good quality films because word of mouth speaks volumes.

Pixar, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Marvel and Lucasfilm shouldn't be the only things keeping the company afloat. Rehashes of things they've done before (that scene from Ratatouille immediately comes to mind) shouldn't be the only things keeping Disney's live action studio afloat. Walt Disney ventured into live action filmmaking for a reason. Disney needs to get their act together and do their live action film division justice!

The Real Animation Domination

VS.

For many decades, it seemed that Disney would remain unchallenged in the world of animated feature-length film production... Times certainly have changed!

Disney and Competition

Over the Years...

During the 1st Golden Age of Animation, the competing studios didn't have the budgets nor the ambitions of the Disney studio. Instead they broke new ground with short subjects (i.e. Warner Bros.' cartoons, Tex Avery's films and Hanna/Barbera's Tom and Jerry series), redefining animation in their own ways without making 80-minute films. A few studios gave the animated feature-length film business a try, most notably the Fleischer Brothers with their rotoscoped Gulliver's Travels in 1939 and the box office disaster that was Mr. Bug Goes to Town (which had opened just two days before the attack on Pearl Harbor).

In the early 1970s, Ralph Bakshi produced more than two animated feature length films. A good number of them did well and were praised, such as Fritz the Cat and Heavy Traffic. He was famously the anti-Disney, as most of his films were aimed at adults only (Fritz was infamously the first animated film to get an X rating from the MPAA) and had art styles that were far removed from the lavish and cute productions coming from Burbank. But Bakshi began to wind down by the 1980s, as he started producing less raunchy fare such as Wizards and The Lord of the Rings.

Ex-Disney animator Don Bluth entered the ring in the 1980s. He was an ardent admirer of the Golden Age Disney films, and he was frustrated when he was at Disney in the 1970s since the company had become rather conservative and weren't willing to take any risks with the animation studio. He left Disney in 1979, took 14 animators with him and started his own studio. The results? The well-made The Secret of NIMH and the record-breaking An American Tail.

An American Tail was released by Universal Pictures in the fall of 1986, backed by an aggressive marketing campaign that played up Steven Spielberg's producer credit. For the first time, a major animated film had taken the throne... The highest-grossing animated feature film on initial release. The film's success was what got a then-declining (all due to the new faces at the studio who initially saw no future in feature animation) Disney to get back into the game. The results? Well there was the highly successful Oliver & Company in 1988, which famously opened the same day as Don Bluth's next big film The Land Before Time. It was quite a box office battle, as both films did very, very well. Oliver ended up winning in North America, grossing a record amount and beating An American Tail.

But then after that came The Little Mermaid in 1989 and the rest is history... Don Bluth on the other hand squandered his potential, breaking away from Steven Spielberg (though to be fair, Spielberg and George Lucas had butchered The Land Before Time) and scoring a disappointment with All Dogs Go To Heaven. The films that followed were very problematic and a good number of them went through the ringer before getting a suitable theatrical release.

The Second Golden Age really fired up after Disney's successes with Oliver and Mermaid, alongside the Touchstone-released Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Other studios wanted in: Fox, Warner Bros. and many others. But they screwed up... None of their films did well, and many of them were critical duds. Many of them are essentially Disney clones, as suits thought you'd could beat Disney by copying their formula. The only film that prevailed was Don Bluth's critical and commercial comeback Anastasia (released by Fox, who were then gung ho about going head to head with Disney) in 1997, which many non-animation fans usually call a Disney film. If only executives had let writers, directors and animators try something different, the Second Golden Age would not have ended.

DreamWorks positioned themselves as the anti-Disney when their Antz and The Prince of Egypt hit cinemas in 1998, which did change the industry somewhat. They were the first successful rival to Disney in a long time, and to this day they're one of the heavy hitters. The other distributors' plans failed... Fox killed their animation studio with the teen-centric Titan A.E., Warner Bros. invested in turkeys and Universal put out a slew of unremarkable films.

But nowadays, all the distributors are releasing competent films that also make a lot of money. Pixar, Disney and DreamWorks do have some legitimate competition in the form of Blue Sky, Illumination and Sony Pictures Animation. On an artistic level, Disney and Pixar have very impressive rivals in Aardman, LAIKA and several small studios whose films are independently released.

Let's just say that this Third Golden Age of Animation is a big one... It may not reach the level of near-perfectness of the 1st Golden Age, but animation is booming. More than one big budget animated feature-length film hits the silver screen every couple of months. Some years have more films than others, but we're at a point where animation has become so lucrative that there's a lot of it out there. If anything, that's something to celebrate even though there's a good amount of subpar work out there. There's a few studios I can point the fingers to...

But now the competition looks like it's going to get hairier... Very much so...

Disney vs. Fox

At the end of May, Disney announced their upcoming slate that focused on their own animation studio and Pixar. They secured dates for eight - four from Pixar, four from Disney Animation - currently untitled/mystery productions (though going by the tidbits we get, we could assume what these films will be) that ranged from March 2016 to November 2018. Now this seemed a bit crazy to some, considering that November 2018 is over five years away. It certainly showed that they were ready, and they also implied that they got the spots to warn the competition from taking such dates. When's the last time a Walt Disney Animation Studios film opened in late winter/early spring? November is usually shared by both Disney and DreamWorks nowadays, sometimes they swap positions. For instance, in 2010, DreamWorks' Megamind opened at the beginning of the month and Tangled came out the day before Thanksgiving. But in 2012, Disney got the early spot for their Wreck-It Ralph while DreamWorks' Rise of the Guardians arrived a few days before Thanksgiving.

Interestingly enough, one of the dates that Disney picked was the 17th of June in 2016. That spot was picked for an untitled Pixar film, presumably Lee Unkrich's "Dia De Los Muertos" film. Last autumn, DreamWorks had announced that this was the day their How To Train Your Dragon 3 was scheduled to arrive. (It was mistakenly announced for June 18th, that's a Saturday in 2016!) So now Pixar's film and the DreamWorks three-quel are currently set to open on the same day... They are apparently going head-to-head.

Before Fox made their move earlier this week, I had assumed that one of the studios was going end up moving their film. My money was on DreamWorks, since they have occupied the first Friday of June before with 2008's Kung Fu Panda and the upcoming B.O.O., which is slated to open on the 5th in 2015. But moving Dragon 3 would be weird because the second Dragon is hitting theaters on the 20th of June next year. But where else could they have it open? Sony is releasing an animated Angry Birds film on July 1, 2016 so crunching Dragon 3 between Pixar's film and Angry Birds would be unwise... Fox didn't move it and it seems like they won't...

Not too long after Disney announced their upcoming slate, Fox announced that they had claimed dates for Blue Sky films and DreamWorks films. Their slate ended a month after Disney's! In addition to not moving Dragon 3 (Disney has not moved Pixar's film), Fox struck back... Peanuts, which is being made by Blue Sky, was originally pegged for a November 6th release in 2015. Now, it's been moved to November 25th. What else comes out that day? Finding Dory!

 

VS.

That's right, the long-anticipated sequel to one of Pixar's most popular and beloved films. Fox apparently thinks that Peanuts will put up a good fight. True, the film is based on the quintessential American comic strip, but the question is: Will the film do the strip and the iconic characters any justice? Or will it be an insulting dud that's no different from the other "retro revivals" that have been coming out? (i.e. Alvin and the Chipmunks, The Smurfs...)

This will be the first time since 1989 where two big high-profile studios will go head-to-head at the box office. (No, Anastasia opening against The Little Mermaid's re-release in 1997 does not count!) In the recent years, we've seen studios distance their films away from others. With today's ticket prices, 3D and families being choosy, releasing two animated films so close to each other could be a big risk that yields small rewards. Fox also plans on having an animated film from one of their studios open on June 16, 2017 as well, the same day as Pixar's summer 2017 film. Fox is gung ho about taking the Mouse House head on. I can see why they are so confident, they have two animation hit machines.

Finding Dory, from where I stand, will easily clear $100 million on its opening weekend and will go on to gross more than $300 million domestically. Peanuts? I honestly can't see it making a big splash on opening weekend, though we have no idea what the film will be like at the moment. If it's worthy of the original comic strip, the specials and the animated features, then it could possibly do very well on opening weekend. $40 million is the floor for it, so it won't flop, but I can't see it doing too, too good against the Pixar sequel. The legs and momentum might be cut off. It doesn't help that Fox will be releasing the fourth Alvin and the Chipmunks and Kung Fu Panda 3 a few weeks after Thanksgiving.

This leads me to ask another question...

Box Office Brawls

With so many big animated films opening so close to each other in the far future, what will the results be? Well, next month, we'll get a good idea. And no, I don't think this battle will be a brutal war or anything...

Monsters University opens this coming Friday, and shortly afterwards Despicable Me 2 will hit theaters, kicking off July's animation line-up. One film is from a beloved and generally trusted studio, it's a prequel to a film that lots of people love and families haven't had an animated film to go see since Epic, nor a "must-see" one since The Croods. Pixar also has adult appeal given their track record.

The other is a sequel to a film that lots of people loved, and kids will be begging their parents to see it again and again. The first film successfully appealed to adults as well, plus the film's Minion characters are everywhere. The marketing, as usual, is aggressive and all over the place. It's a new big franchise!

Both will clear $200 million at the domestic box office, $300 million is also very possible for both... But...

Turbo is in a bit of trouble. Now coming out after these two films isn't enough, but two big family-friendly animated films open right after it debuts. Unlike the two before it and the two coming after it, Turbo is not a sequel nor is it based on a brand that people are familiar with. The film isn't really appealing to adults either but Fox's marketing isn't lazy, they want this to be a hit since The Croods pulled in close to $600 million for them! I will be shocked if it makes more than $150 million domestically. The marketing is kind of passing it off as a family-friendly Fast & Furious, something that could either work in its favor or backfire miserably.

The Smurfs 2 is a guaranteed hit much like Monsters University and Despicable Me 2, since the first was a big hit and also, it's one of those franchises that kids seem to go gaga over. Adults probably won't be there for the sequel, not sure why the original even took in $140 million+ to begin with. Films that only kids and parents go to see don't gross that much!

Then there's Planes, which Disney probably gave a theatrical release due to two things: The popularity of the Cars franchise amongst kids and the fact that they wanted to give DreamWorks' racing-themed snail flick a run for its money... Well, maybe. Anyways, this one is a bit tricky to predict but kids and their parents will be there on opening weekend... Anyone else? Who knows, but a gross of over $50 million is certainly in the cards. If the film turns out to be decent-to-good, like the early reactions imply, then $100 million is very possible. If it goes that far, then I'll also be surprised.

Now if all these films perform well (as in meeting expectations and/or not underperforming), then it'll indicate that audiences are willing to see many animated films in theaters at once. Also, these films have all of August and September to make their dough. Will any get left out? Or will all four of them do well?

In short, this summer will basically answer that question: How will audiences respond to four big, heavily-marketed animated films opening so close to each other?

More and More...

Usually, we get more than eight wide release animated features (not counting indie releases or US dubs of foreign language films) every year. But with these studios ramping up their schedules and planning to release 2-3 films in a single year, imagine how massive 2016, 2017 and 2018 will be!

- Walt Disney Animation Studios will start offering two films a year starting in 2016.

- Pixar will begin readying two films a year in 2015.

- DreamWorks normally releases 2-3 films a year. They may even try to bang four out in a single year! They've tried!

- Blue Sky may start releasing two films a year by 2017.

- Sony Pictures Animation normally has two films ready for a given year, though at other times they have just one.

- Illumination may do two a year, since their development slate is jam-packed.

On top of that, you have your occasional Aardman and LAIKA films coming out every 2-3 years. Reel FX is also entering the ring, hoping to have one film out every year starting this autumn with their questionable Free Birds, which Relativity Media is releasing. If that's a hit, Relativity may want to invest in more animated features since Fox will be releasing the studio's second film, the much more interesting Book of Life.

DisneyToon's Planes franchise is a theatrical thing now, so Disney is taking major league advantage of that regardless of how it affects Pixar's image. Lucasfilm Animation has a film in the works, their second overall and their first non-Star Wars project. Of course, Disney will release it and might promote the heck out of it... Will Lucasfilm Animation be Disney's third feature animation hit-maker? (DisneyToon shouldn't be their third, because aside from Planes, they've got nothing else that's suitable for a theatrical release. Heck, Planes isn't suitable for theaters!)

Maybe in the next 2 years, we'll see more small studios and stop motion houses successfully getting their work released nationwide. Maybe a small hand-drawn revolution will be sparked by small animation studios, perhaps from the animators Disney recently laid off. Maybe it'll motivate the big studios to invest in hand-drawn films that don't cost as much as the computer animated films.

With all these studios' plans, it's possible that animation will really dominate towards the end of the decade. The reason why we don't see more than 20 or so big studio animated films is obvious, animated films take longer to make and there's only six big studios in the American animation industry, though more are on the rise. It's amazing that a studio like DreamWorks can have three films ready for release in a single year, and they all look good... Story and screenplay is another issue, but still!

So if more and more come, what could possibly happen? Here are two theories of mine...

A Negative Effect

Glut and Potential Collapse

Now there is a negative side to all of this... There may be a ton of animated films coming, but quality... Quality! What if we get, say 20 big studio animated films in 2020? What if 6-8 are good, a few more are decent but the rest are mediocre-to-bad? Films that scream "Yeah... We're just trying to make money"? I've been saying this for a while, but distributors need to give independent animated films a chance too. A lot of them don't cost too much and you could make a good profit off of them if you promote them right. A lot of those films are hard sells, but a lot of distributors screw up with the marketing (Fantastic Mr. Fox for example), making these relatively low budget films fail at the box office.

With a lot of bad/mediocre animated films coming and going, people will start complaining "There are too many animated films these days!" Of course, no one bats an eye at the amount of terrible-to-unremarkable live action films that come out every week. Animation is still seen as that "annoying kiddie stuff" to most people, so more and more animated films may scare them away from the good stuff because ignorance speaks volumes. So much saturation in the market could produce a negative effect.

Let's say a good number of films don't do well at the box office and audiences avoid a good number of animated films from the big studios. What will the distributors and studios resort to? Look at DreamWorks. Rise of the Guardians lost quite a lot of money (that was the fault of the marketing, not the movie), grossing $303 million worldwide against a $145 million budget and presumably sky high marketing costs. Look what happened: A project that was already in production was scrapped ($40 million loss there) and over 350 members of the staff were laid off! Imagine if Sony Pictures Animation or Blue Sky were to score a disappointment on that level. It doesn't seem to matter if the next film saves them, DreamWorks still did what they did not knowing that their next film would be a smash hit. If anything, the suits should've waited to see how The Croods did in addition to taking note of Rise of the Guardians' home media sales. (Which were reportedly very good!)

But these studios are unpredictable. Focus Features seemed to be fine with LAIKA's ParaNorman failing to double its small budget, their next film is already being fired up. DreamWorks on the other hand fretted over Guardians, which still did okay enough. To their credit, they have several films planned and they know what films will be on their ever-changing slates. Someone like Sony Animation doesn't, evidenced by their announcement that two untitled films are coming in 2016 and 2017. Disney does that with Disney Animation and Pixar. Illumination's 2015 release is also untitled at the moment. Still, how would one of those studios (minus Disney and Pixar) react to a flop or money-loser?

Since I don't know too much about how the business works with each of these studios, I can only assume that the studios have different expectations. Some may be a little less demanding, while others are hoping for big profits.

A Positive Effect

The More the Merrier

Despite what attitude Americans may currently have towards animation, more and more animated films coming out (and perhaps a renaissance for indie animation) could change audiences' perceptions of animated features and animation in general. Maybe it'll be the "thing" in the coming years, since there will be more of it.

More and more people are slowly warming up to the stuff that used to be shunned as kids stuff or whatever. Audiences will show up for good animation, and more people are checking these films out. People without kids. Maybe a diverse range of films - and many to choose from - could only strengthen this current Golden Age. Animation will be more commonplace, but in a good way. We're so used to live action films and big budget blockbusters coming every week or so, the American people could damn well get used to several animated films coming in a single year.

Things could go over very well if studios keep trying with different films and not always spewing out family-friendly stuff. People will get sick of that, and they'll continue to associate the art form with family-friendly fare and kids stuff. I've been saying this for a while: The American animation industry seriously needs to invest in lower budget adults-only fare and rocket the medium to new heights. In order to make a successful thing even more successful, you have to take a risk or two. Paramount tried with Rango and it paid off, other studios should give it a try. Fox is releasing Reel FX's seemingly unconventional and perhaps not-so-family-friendly Book of Life next autumn, so that could help the medium.

I mean, I think if all 15-20 of the big studio films are only family films (G and PG), audiences will get tired of the medium and will stick with a few studios or whatever piques their interest. Studios also have to up the quality on their product, because some of them churn out clunkers. How much more Smurfs and Ice Age-type stuff can audiences take, really? Audiences are okay with bad live action films oozing out of every pore, but the amount of animated films released a year is tiny compared to the amount of live action films. Also, everyone pretty much accepts live action easily, but not everyone accepts... You know... Cartoons. Tough reality, but the medium continues to struggle in some ways.

However, if the batch of films every year is generally good, animation might just become more and more commonplace. That would be great, because it wouldn't be that once-a-month or once-in-a-while thing... That is, if studios put out a lot of stuff to choose from. A wide variety... But is the industry up to that challenge? It seems like it'll take a while before they get there, if they ever get there at all...

~

Theatrical animation has now become a growing empire, one that continues to grow with more studios launching and distributors seeing the opportunities in the medium. Many years ago, Disney dominated for the most part. Nowadays, everyone dominates. The industry is huge... But it'll be become mammoth... What the outcome will be, who knows. What do you think the future of animation has in store for us? What do you think of multiple films opening a year? Animated films opening so close to each other and/or on the same day as other animated films? What's your take on all of this?

Sound off below!

Sony Makes Their Move

Not too long after Disney and Fox announced the upcoming slates for their animation studios, Columbia has now secured two dates for Sony Pictures Animation: September 23, 2016 and September 22, 2017. I pretty much saw this coming, since Sony always nabs the late September spot for their films.

If you ask me, the 2016 film should be Popeye. No way that film comes out in 2015, since Sony has two films coming out that year: The Smurfs 3 and Hotel Transylvania. There's a possibility that they may do 3 films a year, but for now, I think Popeye should be the 2016 film. As for the 2017 film? It could be anything... The fan of original ideas in me hopes it's Doug Sweetland's The Familiars (he's currently directing Storks for Warner Bros. Animation), but it'll probably be a sequel or a film based on a well-known property. The studio has been rather gung ho about the likes of ALF and Manimal...

What do you think the 2016 and 2017 films will be?

Disney Slate Update: Marvel, Muppets, Planes & More!

Disney has once again changed their upcoming slate, but this change doesn't affect releases from Walt Disney Animation Studios or Pixar. The details are here thanks to Box Office Mojo and /Film...

The big news here is that two untitled Marvel productions have been slated for May 6, 2016 and May 5, 2017. Marvel usually takes the first Friday of May for most of their films (the Iron Man films, The Avengers and its sequel, Thor), and I guess Star Wars spin-offs are opening in theaters in both May 2016 and May 2017.

What will be ready? For the May 2016 film, probably Doctor Strange, though in my recent set of predictions, I thought that the film would come a month early since Marvel has locked the early April 2014 spot for Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I was thinking that Disney would release Marvel movies in April to distance them from any Lucasfilm productions (i.e the Star Wars spin-offs, since Disney wants at least one Star Wars film a year), but it looks like Disney is okay with releasing both a Marvel film and a Lucasfilm production in the same month. That is, if Lucasfilm follows the mid-May tradition for everything they release.

Oddly enough, no other Marvel production is slated for a 2016 release. This implies that Marvel may produce one film a year after 2015, but maybe we'll hear more in the coming months. I can't see Marvel ditching the 2-film-a-year strategy anytime soon since the momentum is still there. Speaking of Lucasfilm, no date for Star Wars: Episode VII yet! But I think we all know what it will be...

Yep, Ricky Gervais is going to be in this.

Some minor changes were made to one 2013 release and two 2014 releases...

Brad Bird's Tomorrowland has been moved a week forward. The film will now open on December 12, 2014... Good. The only thing that stands in its way is the finale to Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy, but something tells me that this Bird-directed sci-fi will overshadow the hobbits since the first one did very well, but didn't perform like a titan. In addition to George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Raffey Cassiday, Thomas Robinson has now been cast. It'll be fun to track this one, since the marketing will be decidedly enigmatic!

The Muppets... Again! is now Muppets Most Wanted. Not really sure about that title, to be honest. It may fit in with the plot, but I think it sounds a bit awkward. What do you think of it? The release date is still the same: March 21, 2014.

This December's Disney film, Saving Mr. Banks, has also been moved a week forward. The film opens on December 13, 2013.

More films have been scheduled for release in 2014...

The first of which is Planes: Fire and Rescue, which opens on July 18th... I was hoping that this spin-off franchise wouldn't be a theatrical thing. I was already not to thrilled with the fact that Planes was getting a theatrical release, this will only cause more confusion since a lot of people assume that the series was made by Pixar. Like I need to hear any more "Planes? What are you doing, Pixar?!" complaints. Anyways, Disney is apparently very confident in the first film. After all, it probably didn't cost much to make being a DisneyToon Studios production, but I'll be surprised if it makes much more than $100 million at the domestic box office.

Opening on August 8th is a project I've never heard of before: The Hundred-Foot Journey. A Touchstone/DreamWorks production, the film is based on a book by Richard C. Morais. It's about an Indian boy living in Paris who becomes the apprentice for a chef that's a rival to his father.

This one was announced last year: Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day. An adaptation of the children's book of the same name where a boy's family has a bad day thanks to him wishing they'd experience his daily problems, this might go the way of The Odd Life of Timothy Green... It just screams unspectacular to me. However, The Jim Henson Company is working on it so there might be something interesting about it. Steve Carrell and Jennifer Garner will be in it, and Cedar Rapids director Miguel Arteta will direct. The film is set to open on October 10, 2014.

Into The Woods will arrive on Christmas Day. I had initially predicted that it would be Disney's March 2015 release, but apparently it'll be ready by the end of next year. The Rob Marshall-directed production stars quite the cast, too: Johnny Depp, Chris Pine, Jake Gyllenhaal, Emily Blunt and Meryl Streep. This ought to be a big success for Disney, though it's being released a little too close to Tomorrowland.

A total of 13 films from the Mouse House (including Marvel and Touchstone/DreamWorks films) will now be coming to theaters in 2014! I guess Disney really does want to bang 14-15 films out a year! Now I'll have to update my predictions...

What's your on this news? What do you think of Planes' sequel getting a theatrical release? Are you interested in any of the live action films that Disney has planned for 2014? Or not? What do you of think the new title for the Muppets sequel?

Sound off below!

Fox's Answer

It looks like 20th Century Fox is taking cues from Disney, who had recently announced release dates for four untitled Pixar films and four untitled Walt Disney Animation Studios films. That list went all the way up to November 2018! Now, 20th Century Fox has unveiled their upcoming slate for their two animation studios, and that one goes up to December 2018!

/Film and fellow animation news site and podcast Animation Fascination have revealed the details! Now, DreamWorks and Blue Sky's 2013-2016 schedule hasn't changed much, it's still the same. (minus one thing, but we'll get to that!) In addition to the projects that are scheduled for release from 2013 to 2016 (and early 2017, since Fox grabbed an April date for Blue Sky's Ferdinand a couple weeks back), these are the new dates that the distributor secured for both DreamWorks and Blue Sky's upcoming films...

March 10, 2017

June 16, 2017

July 21, 2017

November 3, 2017

December 20, 2017

March 23, 2018

June 29, 2018

July 20, 2018

November 2, 2018

December 21, 2018

There are two big issues with this slate...

Head-To-Head

DreamWorks' How To Train Your Dragon 3 is still scheduled for a June 17, 2016 release. That's the same day Pixar's summer 2016 film (presumably Dia De Los Muertos) will open. DreamWorks got the date first.

June 16, 2017 was nabbed by Disney first for an untitled Pixar film. Now Fox has this date...

Fox also changed the date for Blue Sky's untitled Peanuts film. Once scheduled for a November 6th release (same day as Disney/Marvel's Ant-Man), it's now opening on November 25, 2015... The same day as Pixar's Finding Dory!

Is it possible that Fox wants to pull a 1988 Universal on us and release a DreamWorks or Blue Sky film the same day a Disney or Pixar film comes out? Back in 1988, Universal famously released Don Bluth's The Land Before Time on the same day as Disney's Oliver & Company. The two high-profile releases went head-to-head in quite a box office battle, as both films were big. Domestically, Oliver grossed $53 million and Land took in $48 million. A year later, United Artists released Bluth's All Dogs Go To Heaven the same day as The Little Mermaid, but that whole strategy proved to be unwise in the end since Disney's critically acclaimed film crushed Bluth's at the box office. In 1991, Amblimation's An American Tail: Fievel Goes West was left in the dust as Beauty and the Beast broke records left and right.

With Disney becoming a titan again, distributors mostly avoided releasing the animated films they had on the same day as a Disney production. It didn't help that most of the stuff they had was much inferior to Disney's product at the time. Since the 1990s, we haven't seen such a battle happen. Times are different now, and the competitors to Disney and Pixar have above-average films that also make a boatload of money.

Do you think Fox will go through with their plans and release animated films the same day as the ones Disney plans to release? Do you think on Thanksgiving week in 2015, Finding Dory and Peanuts will open the same day? Or do you think someone is going to end up moving their films?

The competitive field has just gotten more interesting...

DreamWorks or Blue Sky?

Right now, "Untitled Fox/DWA/Blue Sky Film" is listed next to each date on the schedule, implying that Fox has no idea what dates Blue Sky picked and what dates DreamWorks is eying down... A sort of anything goes approach. Going by DreamWorks and Blue Sky's patterns, I think this is what will happen...

March 10, 2017 - DreamWorks Film
June 16, 2017 - DreamWorks Film
July 21, 2017 - Blue Sky Film
November 3, 2017 - DreamWorks Film
December 20, 2017 - DreamWorks Film *or* Blue Sky Film

Wait... We have another problem here. Blue Sky hasn't released two films a year nor have they released a film during the holidays. Unless they start doing so by 2017, DreamWorks will occupy the December 2017 slot... But that would mean that four films will be released by the moon boy studio that year! Remember when that was supposed to happen for 2015? Didn't quite pan out, now did it?

I have a feeling that Blue Sky will ultimately end up releasing two films a year. Pixar is doing it, Disney is doing it, DreamWorks has been doing it for years... Now it's their turn.

Anyways...

December 20, 2017 - Blue Sky Film
March 23, 2018 - DreamWorks Film
June 29, 2018 - DreamWorks Film
July 20, 2018 - Blue Sky Film
November 2, 2018 - DreamWorks Film
December 20, 2018 - Blue Sky Film

So why do I think it'll be this way? Well, DreamWorks has been aiming for dates that are not too far Disney or Pixar's these days. For instance, in 2015, their B.O.O. opens just two weeks ahead of Pixar's Inside Out. In 2016, their Mumbai Musical comes two weeks after Disney's untitled March release and Trolls arrives weeks before Disney's untitled Thanksgiving week release.

Blue Sky also aims for April or July, the last time they released something in March was in 2008.

I'm just a bit shocked that the slate isn't clear cut. Surely it would note which studio's film will be hitting theaters on each date, right? Maybe an update will straighten things out, but this is what I'm assuming for now going by what happened in the past.

~

Anyways, it's not surprising that Fox has already fired back with their own big upcoming schedule but it looks like they are content with going head-to-head with Disney. Perhaps they are very confident since Blue Sky's films normally do incredibly well overseas and The Croods has made a whopping amount. This could either work out well or backfire horribly. What do you think will end up happening? Sound off!

Really Thinking Ahead

It figures the moment I post an article about how Walt Disney Animation Studios is becoming more secretive about their upcoming slate, Disney announced that there's four untitled productions of theirs coming and the release dates have been secured! Their Emeryville comrades, Pixar, have locked dates for four films of their own.

The news broke this morning thanks to /Film, who got the confirmation from tweets by Exhibitor Relations' Twitter...

The Mouse House dropped some big cheese--UNTITLED DISNEY ANIMATION films are set for 3/4/16, 11/23/16, 3/9/18, 11/21/18.
— Exhibitor Relations (@ERCboxoffice) May 29, 2013

Animation domination! UNTITLED PIXAR FILMS are now set for 6/17/16, 6/16/17, 11/22/17, 6/15/18.
— Exhibitor Relations (@ERCboxoffice) May 29, 2013

Will you look at that... This slate goes up to 2018!

Okay, first off... Walt Disney Animation Studios...

Notice how 2015 and 2017 are out of the question? Notice how Pixar has two films coming out those years? I guess Disney Animation might end up sitting it out during those two years, making up for it with two films in another year. How unexpected!

March 2016's film could very well be Byron Howard's film or the Ron Clements/John Musker film. There is one little dilemma, DreamWorks' Mumbai Musical is currently on track for a March 18th release that year... I think DreamWorks may end up moving their film back a few weeks... For November 2016, March 2018 and November 2018... Who knows? It could be projects that have never been attempted at Disney before, or they can be ones that were announced a while back but ended up not working out (King of the Elves comes to mind). The feature-length Mickey Mouse film could be one of them as well...

I guess the plan is this: Whenever Pixar has two films ready for a certain year (both summer and autumn), Disney Animation will not have something out that year (which is kind of disappointing because a Disney Animation film every year is something worth looking forward to...) instead putting out two of their own in another year... Seems fair enough.

Disney made sure to get the pre-Thanksgiving spots and the early weeks of March, maybe to warn competition like Illumination or Blue Sky to back away. This is a smart strategy that could work for them, because March is a good time to release animated family films despite the fact that kids will be in school, but hey... The Lorax was able to make $200 million. (Well that was mostly due to a big opening...)

Anyways... This is nonetheless exciting. Walt Disney Animation Studios will still probably be very secretive on what's coming, but we know that Byron Howard's film and Ron & John's project are next in line...

Now, moving on to Pixar...

It seems like Pixar won't gravitate away from the mid-June spot these days, one that's worked in their favor. But like their plans for Finding Dory, they have another film that's tentatively slated for an autumn release... And the second in its respective year! Years ago, Pixar used to be the ones with the autumnal/pre-Thanksgiving releases, with Disney releasing their hits during the summer. But it looks like Pixar may go back to those days... So, what will be released?

If Finding Dory will definitely come out in November 2015 (I still have a feeling that it might move to summer 2016 to make room for Walt Disney Animation Studios' film), then the June 2016 film will probably be Dia De Los Muertos, even though that's a couple of months before the actual Day of the Dead holiday. Maybe Pixar will give it a release here in the summer, but a late October release in Mexico to coincide with the holiday... But according to the tweet, the film will be released the 17th... You know what comes out on the 17th? DreamWorks How To Train Your Dragon 3! Will there be a head-to-head animation battle? Or will one of them move? I'm thinking the latter... Dragon 3 may end up moving to the first week of June or something.

June 2017? Well, that could be the Teddy Newton film. Or the Mark Andrews one. It depends on what's ready...

November 2017? That sequel, maybe? Supposedly one more after Finding Dory is in the works, but we need to take Iger's recent comment on that with a grain of salt. However, if it is a sequel... Could Brad Bird return to deliver a powerhouse sequel to The Incredibles? Or will Disney have Pixar milk the anthropomorphic autos franchise with a Cars threequel? Or will the November 2017 release be another all-original film? (What film is Buffy writer Marti Noxon working on? What about that mystery film Giacchino is scoring?) Will Pixar finally start regularly releasing more than one film a year starting with 2015?

June 2018? Probably another original... Newt perhaps? Okay I know, I'm probably being too optimistic! If anything, it'll either be the Andrews film or the Newton... Again, which ever one is ready, assuming that the 11/2017 film is the sequel.

What are your predictions? Do you think Disney should keep releasing their own animated films every year? Or are you okay with their new strategy? Do you think Pixar will actually release two films a year? Or not? Sound off below!