Can We Call Nemo A Success?

[DisneyKidds]

How can you really believe this when you see Bringing Down the House and Matrix Reloaded and any other number of 100+ million generating pieces of mind candy out there.

Scoop - let me clarify my position on 'story'. I've been talking animated features, and not films in general. I think story is very important for an animated feature. I don't think it is as important for live action flicks.

In an aninmated feature you don't have all the stunts and cool special effects to hide behind. You don't have the sex and violence to make things exciting for the audience. In an animated feature you have to rely much more on the characters and the story. And for an animated feature, not only does the story itself have to be good, it has to be suitable to a wide audience if it is going to be a big success.

Yes, there is a lot of crap out there. In fact, I am headed to see Matrix Reloaded in IMAX this evening. Yeah, I have heard the story isn't anywhere near as good as The Matrix, but all those special effects on the HUGE screen are too much to pass up. There are lots of things that will attract various people to crappy live action flicks. It is harder to attract kids and families to crappy animated features.

Proof of that............. and proof that I am not the mindless, brand crazy, quality blind, Disney drone some think I am ...............I didn't take the kids to see Piglet's Big Movie, nor did a lot of people.

 

[HB2K]

I have nothing to add to a DisKidds post!?!?!?!

Well said.

 

[Planogirl]

Originally posted by thedscoop
How can you really believe this when you see Bringing Down the House and Matrix Reloaded and any other number of 100+ million generating pieces of mind candy out there.

The fact is that many movies with terrible stories (but really kewl trailers and/or actors) have been very successful.

Frankly, I think your limitation is giving us--the general public, that is---way too much credit. Otherwise, there'd be a lot more Greek Weddings and Beckham Benders out there than X-Men 2's

Story is one very important component but a movie with a good story can be BORING. There has to be the chance for the public to relate to the characters and there has to be some type of visual appeal both of which X-Men 2 has plenty of.

Another factor is the ability to appeal to some audience. Very few movies appeal to everyone, some people crave action far more than a sappy love story for example. Animation can't do much with action (as DK pointed out so well) so it has to rely heavily on story and characters. Treasure Planet had the skeleton of a decent story in my opinion but it was not particularly visually appealing and it was hard to care much about the characters. Atlantis had none of this, no decent story, limited visual appeal and I can't really recall the characters which tells me a lot.

 

[raidermatt]

Plain and simple answer. For historical and personal reasons which will not go away until a generation completes itself.

Eisner wouldn't be approving $120+ million budgets for historical and personal reasons.

Further, if when left alone with a reasonable budget, L&S can be produced, there is significant financial justification for continuing in the genre.

Dinosaur's failing point was a lack of laughs? No. The story was weak, and a poor job was done with making the characters connect emotionally with the audience. Perhaps humor could have been used as a tool to make that happen, but its not as simple as inserting a few gags. To compare apples to apples, Groove was a hoot, but bombed at the box office, while L&S succeeded.

Ice Age was no masterpiece, but there was a better effort made to make the audience FEEL for the characters. Yeah, it was funny when the sloth's tongue stuck to the ice, but I guarantee that the scene where we saw the Mammoth's memory of his "wife" and child's death at the hands of humans was a far greater reason for its appeal.

Again, humor is a tool, just like anything else. You can throw in some extra laughs and maybe that can help, but its not the laughs alone that make a successful animated movie.

Either, nobody can seem to make a good one in the last half decade or that medium is becoming the VCR to the DVD.

When has ANYBODY other than Disney had significant and consistent box office success with animated films? Further, hasn't Disney themselves had problems at the box office during several periods in its history? Was the genre dead each of these times? Of course not.

I'm not saying CGI won't eventually be all that is produced, or that it isn't the "wave of the future", but to suggest that anyone can make a successful animated film by using CGI and some laughs is just off base. Further, it would beg the question of why Disney themselves doesn't take advantage of such a simple formula.

And yes, DK makes some good points about why people go to the movies. Explosions, cool effects, loud soundtracks, etc, all draw certain audiences. Animation also has its built-in crowd, but if you want to make more than $40 or $50 million at the box office, its going to have to offer more. If you want $200 million, you don't need explosions and slo-mo effects, but you do need story. That's what draws the potential crowd for animated films. That's what gets Mom and Dad excited about the film instead of just Junior, and that's what will convince Mom and Dad to go see it again. Its also what allows animated films to draw from the part of the public that likes a "good" animated movie, but isn't going to slap down $8 just because its a cartoon.

 

[Another Voice]

Story is not that long book high school forced you to read. Story is something an audience is interested in and presented in a pleasing manner. You can have classic literature that's unappealing and badly presented – and it’s a bad story. Likewise you can have utter drivel and some people will always like it. To them, it's a good story.

That's the issue with mass media – there are no absolutes save two. There will always be a certain number of people who are interested enough a story to buy a ticket. And no matter what you do and how many TV ads you run there will always be people who won't want to buy a ticket.

The business part of show business is making it so you can turn a profit. There are two basic was of making it happen – you can make it cheap so the few people who show up cover the costs, or you can make it appeal to the widest number of people possible. There is no law that says a movie has to make $150 million or it's a failure. There are plenty of movies that make that much and are miserable failures because of their costs; there are movies that make $15 million and a widely successful because they cost so little to make.

It all comes down to running the business.

The idea that "animation is dead" comes only from the flabby mind of failed media executives who snort dollars – not from reality. Eisner simply expects every movie to be The Lion King as if it's our obligation to go see it. He has no interest in either making a movie that actually appeals to that sized audience, or in making a movie that's profitable with the audience it will bring in. Worse, he has no interest in the movie itself. The current Disney animated feature is just a power plant to drive t-shirt sales. The public can generally sniff out a movie that's poorly made. Combine that with an unappealing premise and you've got bad story.

Technology doesn't matter. If it helps make a movie more appealing or better presented, then that's all it does. Hand drawn animation, black & white film, or even shadow puppets can work in exactly the same way. There is nothing about CGI that makes people want to go see it just because it's there; there is nothing in traditional animation that instantly repels people.

Gee, what was the last successful musical you can remember before Chicago? That was a genre deader than animation or even westerns. Yet the public didn't care, they were attracted and enjoyed the story.

 

[crusader]

what was the last successful musical you can remember before Chicago? That was a genre deader than animation or even westerns. Yet the public didn't care, they were attracted and enjoyed the story.

The problem was it took close to thirty years for the reprisal. And when was the last time a black and white film did well at the box office? No doubt there remains a market for classic animation but my question is: Can a classic animated feature given the best story and a tremendous word of mouth promotional campaign equitably succeed at the box office vs. a CGI picture with the same set of circumstances? I don't believe so. Not at the present time. This animation is fresh and people are much more interested. So much so, they are willing to pay to see it more than once.

 

[airlarry!]

And when was the last time a black and white film did well at the box office?

'Schindler's List'.

 

[crusader]

Schindler's List was ten years ago. And before that?

 

[DisneyKidds]

Can a classic animated feature given the best story and a tremendous word of mouth promotional campaign equitably succeed at the box office vs. a CGI picture with the same set of circumstances?

I absolutely believe so. I sincerely doubt there are many people out there who see the previews, trailers, and hype for an animated feature and ask themselves "was that done via traditional hand drawn animation or did they use CGI?" before they make a decision to see the film or not. If the story seems to be appealing, if the characters look likeable, and if word of mouth is strong, people will go regardless of which medium is used. The only variable I see in that equation is the word of mouth part. Perhaps you believe that a CGI film will get better word of mouth from those who have seen it (as compared to a traditionally animated film), but I don't accept that as a given. Yes, CGI has a different feel and can accomplish some different effects, but that doesn't automatically make it better.

Lion King is the highest grossing animated feature in history. Are you saying that if Lion King was released in 2003 it would have been less successful?

 

[DisneyKidds]

Explosions, cool effects, loud soundtracks, etc, all draw certain audiences. Animation also has its built-in crowd, but if you want to make more than $40 or $50 million at the box office, its going to have to offer more. If you want $200 million, you don't need explosions and slo-mo effects, but you do need story. That's what draws the potential crowd for animated films. That's what gets Mom and Dad excited about the film instead of just Junior

You are right, RM - animated films do have their built in crowd. However, as you point out, that built in crowd does not consist of the decision makers when it comes to seeing these films (despite what anyone has to say about why I took my kids to JB2 ). As you point out, that is a big part of what makes story more crucial to an amnimated feature than a live action flick.

The built in crowd for the movies filled with explosions, cool effects, and loud soundtracks are the decision makers, and I believe that the built in crowd for these films are more loyal to their preferred genre. BTW - Matrix Reloaded: The IMAX Experience had THE biggest explosions, THE loudest soundtrack, and some amazing special effects that really lend themselves to the IMAX format. Way cool, and if you have any interest in the film and the opportunity to see it in IMAX I recommend it.

This may be OT, but here is an interesting observation I came away with from the film. I get the impression that Disney is making the biggest investment in IMAX film of any studio. The only trailer was for The Black Stallion. Ghosts of the Abyss is also a Disney film. You have the annual re-release of the classic animated films in IMAX format that has been going on for the last two years. I think it is great that Disney is investing heavily in what is an expensive film format. It seems to me that such investment is designed more to give the audience a truely great experience, rather than raid the wallets of the Disney faithful. It is a nice use of another new technology, and seems like the Disney of old.

 

[raidermatt]

An objective fact is that Eisner approved a $120+ million budget for a hand drawn film. What anyone has been told 3rd or 4th hand about their opinions of his motivation is not an objective fact. Doesn't automatically mean its not true, or that its not worth sharing. But I can't logically reconcile what we know about Eisner from his actions with his being willing to commit that much cash to a hand drawn animated film for historical and personal reasons. If he is merely allowing the genre to continue to appease others, he could certainly do so without $120 million budgets. (With the complete financial failure of TP, nobody has much of a choice in the matter going forward, of course.)

Let's not forget that Jimmy Neutron, while considered successful because of its low cost, was a CGI film recently released that lacked story, and fared worse than Atlantis, Emprorer's New Groove, and Prince of Egypt. It only out-grossed Spirt by $7 million.

Let's face it, a bad story is a bad story. Also, hand drawn can still be used to tell certain stories better than CGI can.

Again, the genre has not been Disney's problem, nor is it the reason for Pixar's success. Disney's ability to fail in both genres is just one piece of evidence that supports that position.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by crusader
Schindler's List was ten years ago. And before that?

Clerks.

 

[Golter]

Though a excellent film (Clerks), Kevin Smith's best work IMO, hardly a box office success.

 

[raidermatt]

Just take a look at the last 5 or 6 traditional handdrawn films and then the last 5 or 6 CGI films and this trend will be objectively obvious.

I get what you are saying, but you don't really need me to point out the flaws in this logic, do you?

 

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by Golter
Though a excellent film (Clerks), Kevin Smith's best work IMO, hardly a box office success.

Depends on how you define box office success. If return on investment is you measure it was successful.

I get what you are saying, but you don't really need me to point out the flaws in this logic, do you?

I thought the same thing. Like you, I decided not to go there .

 

[Golter]

please humor us, If TP was done in CG I believe it would have been a success. We do not know what really would have happend, but I bet that it would have done much better. My reasoning for this: only Jonah and Final Fantasy have bombed as CG in the past 7 years. 8 of the 12 CG's have grossed over 125 Mil. In the past 7 years only Tarzan (171) L&S (145) & Pocahontas (141) have reached 125+. Though I don't have an official count I would guess there has been 30 - 40 animated features released since 1995.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Though I don't have an official count I would guess there has been 30 - 40 animated features released since 1995.

Do you honestly think CGI would maintain that 66% success rate of films grossing $125+ mil if there had been 30 - 40 of them released since 1995?

 

[Another Voice]

"The "objective fact" is that CGI animated films are grossing significantly more than traditional handdrawn films in the last five years."

The objective facts are that traditional animated films that approach the level of good CGI films (like Lilo does to Nemo do well, and CGI films that dive to the level of bad traditional animation (like Final Fantasy did to Titian A.E..

It's the film – not the technology.

The entire CGI/traditional animated tiff is simply another round of the excuse tango. Atlantis and Treasure Planet flopped because they were bad movies. And despite all the brand loyalty you want to huff and puff about, Shrek was a success because people liked it.

The problem is that Disney can not make appealing movies anymore. Being CGI didn't save Dinosaur and Lilo wasn't hurt because it used cells. The difference was that one was made by artists and the other was made by a corporate marketing machine. Turning out Treasure Planet on a few more machines won't have done anything to improve its box office.

 

[Golter]

Worldwide Gross for Dinosaur $356 Mil (155 Mil budget) Lilo WW Gross $273 Mil (120Mil Budget). These were both relative successes.

 

[HB2K]

Then, Voice, how do you explain the fact that, as a whole, good CG movies make significantly more money than good cell-based movies.

Because of the company making the movies.

Pixar has shown, much like Walt did in his day, they have a grasp of what the public wants.

Disney, and to a certain extend Dreamworks, has not shown that same grasp.

That is what is causing the traditional animated films to fail to find an audience at the box office. Not the method used to create the films.