hollywood reporter article on 2d animation 'alive and well'

[BRERALEX]

Nov. 21, 2003


Big 'Bear' boxoffice shows 2D still alive and well

By Martin A. Grove
Big "Bear": Reports last summer that traditional 2D animation is a dead genre at the boxoffice were, apparently, premature considering the rousing success Disney is enjoying these days with "Brother Bear."

Having done over $64.5 million and with Thanksgiving still ahead of it, "Bear" is well on its way to grossing $100 million in domestic theaters. Directed by Aaron Blaise and Bob Walker, "Bear" is a G-rated tale about brotherhood that explores the bond between brothers as well as man's bond with nature. Produced by Chuck Williams, its screenplay is by Tab Murphy and Lorne Cameron & David Hoselton and Steve Bencich & Ron J. Friedman. "Bear" is the third feature film created by Disney's Florida Animation Studio, following "Mulan" and "Lilo & Stitch." The film features six new songs from Oscar winner Phil Collins, including "Great Spirits," performed by Tina Turner.

"Bear's" boxoffice strength comes late in what's been a sensationally hot year for Disney with two of its releases grossing over $300 million -- the computer animated "Finding Nemo" from Pixar Animation Studios, which with about $340 million to date is the year's top grossing movie; and Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer's production of the live action adventure "Pirates of the Caribbean," which has done about $304 million.

Besides its boxoffice success, "Bear" has also just been recognized for the excellence of its animation by being included as one of 11 films eligible to compete for this year's Oscar for best animated feature film. It's actually one of four Disney titles that made the list -- with "Finding Nemo," "The Jungle Book 2" and "Piglet's Big Movie" also up for consideration.

Talking to Buena Vista Pictures marketing president Oren Aviv and distribution president Chuck Viane about "Bear's" big boxoffice impact, I asked them how they felt about the notion that people don't want to see traditional animation now and are only interested in CGI or computer generated animated movies.

"It's never the method in which a movie is shot (that determines how well it does). It's always about the movie itself and how it punches people and how well it's made," Viane replied. "Obviously, 'Brother Bear' has crossed over to many different age groups. The audience exit reaction is terrific. By the strength of our holdover weeks, we're on our way to somewhere very near or over $100 million. So, definitely, 2-D is not dead."

"We never said it was dead," Aviv reminded me, adding, "We're feeling very comfortable with 'Brother Bear's' performance."

In an unusual distribution move that clearly worked very well, Disney launched "Bear" in theaters on Saturday, Nov. 1, avoiding going head to head with competition for family audiences from Halloween trick-or-treating on Friday, Oct. 31. In its first two days in theaters, "Bear" was growling loudly with $19.4 million, averaging $6,404 per playdate. The following weekend, it fell an incredibly low 5 percent, grossing $18.5 million. In its third weekend, "Bear" dropped a modest 35 percent to $12.1 million, bringing its cume through the weekend to $63.1 million.

"Thanksgiving and November have always been two extremely good areas to release family fare and over the past couple of years with 'Monsters, Inc.' and our 'Santa Clause' movies we've found that by being out in early November it gave us a chance to build momentum into the holiday (period)," Viane explained. "So when the opportunity presented itself, with all the competition that's in the market right now we jumped on that opportunity. And, obviously, it paid very nice dividends."

"Last year the first week in November was (the release time for) 'Santa Clause 2,'" Aviv said. "We also had 'Monsters, Inc.' the year before that the first week in November. Now you have a movie like 'Elf' doing that."

Just as Hollywood extended the summer season by starting it in early May, it's now extended the holiday season by giving it an early November kick-off. That's logical, Aviv observed, because, "There's so much competition and there's a limited number of weekends available in the year (and there are 500 to 600 movies coming out each year now). It's a huge number and you end up with four, five, six or seven movies released every weekend. There aren't any free weekends. That's for sure. So the challenge is always there to distinguish yourself.

"It makes sense for the holiday season (and its) moviegoing weekends to be extended in number. It's exciting and it's fun when in a competitive environment you can find a way to stand out and to get noticed. I'm so thrilled that we were able to get in a two-day weekend (almost) nineteen and a half million dollars. And then in a normal weekend we did another eighteen and a half million dollars. You know, the first weekend's about the elements of the movie and the second weekend is about the movie, itself, and the legs of the movie and the power of the picture."

In the case of "Bear," Disney had a film that didn't revolved around a brand name classic character like Winnie the Pooh or Tarzan or Pocahontas, or even a familiar tale like "Beauty and the Beast," but that hasn't mattered to moviegoers. "I think the audience connected with the 'Brother Bear' part of it immediately," Viane said. "When people come out, they certainly understand the title. But it connected on so many levels for so many people and brotherhood is an awful large part of that."

Focusing on Disney's approach to marketing the picture, Aviv told me, "It always starts with the movie, itself. This movie provided us with great characters and they were interesting and funny and unique. We made a decision early on to use the moose as the comic icon of the film. We had a lot of characters to keep our kid audience happy and we had great music and Disney themes to keep the parents and general audiences happy. So we were able to take advantage of all those elements. All of us kind of responded in a positive way to what (was) presented to us in the film, which included elements that we knew from experience were positive attributes that people wanted to see (like) great music, Disney themes, talking animals and comedy. So we focused on those elements."

Music, Aviv explained, played a key role in Disney's marketing for "Bear." "The music was a very important element not just in the movie, but in the marketing of the film," he said. "When you have a singer-songwriter-composer like Phil Collins, you want to use as much as you can to play in your campaign. We used a number of different songs different ways. We used songs on the Disney Channel. We used songs in the commercials. We used songs in promotions. And, of course, the soundtrack, itself, helped the legs of the film."

Asked about the audience "Bear" is attracting, Viane explained, "It is the very traditional Disney commercial audience for all age groups. It's cored to the family, no question about it. But (since) a few years back whenever that turning point was -- whether that was 'The Little Mermaid' or 'Beauty and the Beast' -- the audience (for animation) has really broadened out. It's become much larger and much deeper into the age groups. The plus-55 category shows up to see these movies all the time. Sometimes they bring the grandkids, but sometimes they come on their own. So it's a much broader commercial audience nowadays."

Did Disney expect "Bear" to turn into a movie on its way to grossing $100 million? "It's hard every time you have an animated (movie) to take the position that every movie's $100 million," Viane said. "But after the very first screening it really felt like this was just another one of those home runs. When you feel that electricity in the audience where kids are finding it on one level and adults are connecting on another level, it just kind of gets the juices flowing. And, yes, I think the expectation level was that that's where we were going to come out."

"I'm not surprised," Aviv agreed. "We knew from previews that the movie played great. You can never predict how a movie's going to do (and) it certainly had an uphill battle. But you're always happy that a movie does well and is appreciated by its intended audience."

At the same time that "Bear's" doing so well, a number of other family movies are also enjoying excellent business and aren't hurting each other. New Line's PG rated comedy "Elf" starring Will Ferrell, which has already grossed about $75 million, fell only 15 percent last weekend. Having only cost in the low $30 millions to produce, it's heading for a very profitable $150 million. Revolution Studios and Columbia's PG rated drama "Radio" starring Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Ed Harris, which has done over $44 million, fell just 33 percent last weekend and should get a boost from the strong Thanksgiving weekend appetite for family films. On the other hand, Warner Bros.' PG rated "Looney Tunes: Back in Action" despite having brand name animated characters, well known stars (Brendan Fraser, Jenna Elfman and Steve Martin) and a combination of live action and computer generated images opened to only $9.3 million last weekend.

As Thanksgiving approaches, the family film marketplace will become even more competitive as two other high profile PG rated comedies targeted to family audiences enter the marketplace. "Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat" from Universal, DreamWorks and Imagine Entertainment, directed by Bo Welch, produced by Brian Grazer and starring Mike Myers, opens today via Universal. Disney's PG rated "The Haunted Mansion," directed by Rob Minkoff, produced by Don Hahn and Andrew Gunn and starring Eddie Murphy, arrives Wed., Nov. 26.

What does the fact that so many family films are performing well tell us about the marketplace? "Well, family units have historically been very, very loyal to moviegoing," Viane observed. "As long as our industry continues to make movies that are pleasurable -- and there are certainly a number of them in the marketplace right now -- they come out and they are avid (moviegoers). They come (to see films) more than once a month. There are five family movies in the marketplace (now) and I am sure the vast majority of families will see, at least, three or four of those."

When the family audience sees a film and really likes it, that typically works to the benefit of other family product in the marketplace. "It really does," Viane emphasized. "It's an infectious industry. Good movies put you in the moviegoing habit. To trade on the success of our own ('Bear') and with 'Haunted Mansion' being right around the corner, I think we're going to (attract) an awful lot of people over the five day Thanksgiving weekend. These are pretty exciting times for our studio."

Looking at not only "Bear's" current success, but Disney's mega-blockbuster ticket sales for "Nemo," it's clear that the audience for animation has grown compared to what it was just a few years ago. "Animation has crossed over at every age demographic," Viane pointed out. "Everything about animation today invites everyone in. There is no niche audience anymore."

Reflecting on "Bear's" boxoffice strength, Viane tips his hat to Aviv and his marketing team, noting, "I think the key to the success of this movie is the way Oren delivered the message so that people understood what the movie was about and they were excited to share the experience."

"Every movie presents unique marketing challenges and this was no exception," Aviv said. "All the naysayers (were wrong) about 2D animation versus 3D, which 'Looney Tunes' last weekend proves is a false statement."

What matters most, Aviv explained, isn't the style of animation -- whether it's traditional 2-D images or today's computer generated animation -- but what a particular film offers moviegoers. "I think quality always wins," he said. "A movie that people enjoy and that entertains them and makes them laugh and feel good always wins. We don't make judgments about a given movie so much as take advantage of the elements that present themselves.

"The argument (about 2D animation being dead) that people were saying during the summer has been disproved in the same weekend," Aviv observed. "A 2D movie in its third weekend did $3 million better than the CG movie in its first weekend. Now is that a comment about CG is dead? No. It's always a question of what elements look appealing and interesting and funny and entertaining. With so many choices, it's never about a particular art form is dead. That's not an argument that is true and, in fact, was proven completely untrue this past weekend."

 

[Peter Pirate]

Great article BRERALEX. It's good to see some positive energy surrounding such a good movie.

When we were making our box office guesses I recall the wondering of 'what would constitute a success' in Disney's eyes being asked...Well, it appears the 100M mark would be a resounding benchmark from this read.

As for 2D (HDA) being alive and well...I hope this remains true, but where have all the animators gone...And what're they working on?

Lastly when I last used the term 2D I recall being sternly corrected...Whats th deal? These folks who should know better refer to it as 2D???

 

[YoHo]

I got Chastised for criticizing the use of the word 3d animation on another board as
1: Pixar uses the term widly and
2: The nature of the process by which the scene is rendered is 3d in nature.

2D animaiton is a dumb term though.

I find it interesting that 100Mil is considered a success here when $140 mil was considered a failure for Lilo. (by the Studio)


Of course its all media and perception. The studio execs are probably thinking this is a failure right up until Variety or Rueters knocked on their door asking if they knew beforehand that classic animation wasn't dead? They then realized that they needed to smile and act like they knew all along and suddenly some reporter has probably saved a bunch of Animator's Jobs.

 

[raidermatt]

It probably all depends on who you ask.

Yes, a very interesting article, BRERALEX.

To me, $100 million for a major animated feature isn't exactly a rousing success, but its not a failure either. Certainly $140 million for Lilo last year, and $120 million for Mulan 5 years ago are pretty good numbers.

But then again, last time I checked my voicemail, there were no messages from Eisner asking for my opinion. (maybe I should check the home line...)

Unless a film completely bombs, like TP, the official studio line is going to be pretty positive. Especially with the movie still in release, and coming into a holiday weekend.

So while I'd say Bear is doing just fine, I wouldn't read this article to mean that the upper echelon at Disney thinks its good enough to keep from closing down the studio.

That's not to say they definitely won't keep it open, just that I don't see the article as being proof of it.

 

[Another Voice]

The box office for Brother Bear really doesn't matter.

Put on your 3D sound headphones and close your eyes as the light fades away…

Imagine that you sit in an office deep in the glamorous Burbank Media District. As you stare out the window into Dopey's hindquarters, you are faced with a choice between three course of action:

A) Invest $100+ million and five years into a full blown animated feature that has a small chance of bringing in mega bucks right away (like The Lion King did, but you haven't been able to pull it off since), a pretty good chance of making decent money over the mid term (like they promised Tarzan would do but didn't and now they're claiming Lilo and Stitch will do - but what do they know, they live in Florida) or a pretty good chance of making some money in the long term (hey, they still sell Pocahontas plush). Good grief, and all those employees that have to be paid and benefits and office space and all those supplies. Really, can't they bring their own pencils once and awhile!

B) Get a handful of "creative execs" to recycle a script from a pre-sold, well known property (having a plot distracts from all that time the McDonald's Happy Meal meal characters could be singing a song from the soundtrack album) and send it with a check for $15 million to some overseas animation house, slam the results onto DVD's and flood every WalMart in the country with a film that will earn all it's money back (and be forgotten) in less than a year.

C) Co-sign a production loan for three guys in Chatsworth who have a Mac and an idea. Take their movie, charge them up the wazzoo for "marketing" (to guarantee that Disney will make some money off this stinker) and shovel it into theaters and take 50% of what comes back. No risk and plenty of upside. I mean, people don't expect WalMart to make the toilet paper they buy at those stores, why should they expect Disney to make the movies in the theaters!

Your answer is…?

 

[Peter Pirate]

I was really hoping for an insightful response from you on this Mr. voice...This is the area in which you are most listened to and best suited to explain...Instead we get the animation version of 'Let's Make A Deal'...

 

[Another Voice]

But that's exactly what's going on. It's Let's Make a Deal for My Stock Options.

Disney's dropping traditional style animation* has nothing to do with a sudden public rebellion against that type of movie. It's simple short term economics covered over by Hollywood herd thinking.

From Management's point of view a group in Feature Animation works 5 years without earning a single penny for the company. That's a of expense without revenue. Disney's also had it's run of badly managed productions that have driven up costs tremendously - Empire in the Sun, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Dinosaur, My Peoples are just the recent. It's more important that Disney hit its marketing windows than make a good movie, so the quality of the films suffered, as did the box office.

Sure, when the stars align there's enough money to be made to drown the rats - but it's far from a sure thing. When you've got quarterly numbers to fudge, er…hit, the thoughts about future mega profits are the furthest thing from your mind.

The animated sequels were an attempt to attack the problem from the cost side. From management's (everyone calls them Suits in Hollywood), an artist is an artist. What was supposed to make "Disney" product special were the characters. After some success with TV sequels to real movies, the suits thought they could make "original" movies using the same techniques as easy-on-the-wallet Saturday morning animation. Not only was the process much less expensive, it was also much faster. No special effects animation, no real character design, no artist temperament - everything that Burbank hated about the boys under the big hat across Riverside Drive.

So, Disney bundled up scripts and sheet music and sent them off to cheaper animation houses and waited for the profits to roll in. Marketing had every reason to believe that movies like Return to Neverland and Jungle Book 2 would be $100 million movies. They featured well known characters, the Disney Brand Name and besides, look how well all those Dalmatian and Lady and the Tramp sequels did straight to video.

Only the public wasn't all that interested. In fact, they bombed. Even with their lowered production costs, they still struggled to even approach breakeven. Sure, they financially they performed better than many of the expensive feature films but they still didn't earn the mega bucks needed to reach the fabled 20% per year growth rate.

At this point Eisner had a decision. There were definitely signs that animation could work (Tarzan and good things about good things about Lilo and Stich), but plenty of signs that animation was hard to get right (the mess that is Atlantis and all the idiots that put swords on pirates prancing about Treasure Planet). So do you put in the time and effort to return Feature Animation to the heart of the company having it turn out core product for every division of the company to embrace for generations to come (and all those profits), or save yourself the bother?

Yup, Eisner cut and ran faster than the French Army facing a six year old with a slingshot.

The Company lacks the patience to attempt to fix anything these days. Look at the Disney Stores for another example. "Fixing" takes time; cutting your immediate looses give a quick boast to the bottom line. And fixing always require confidence in your ability to get it done. Disney is hardly a company with a high degree of belief in it's own ability to be creative. I'd chalk up the Xerox 'Soaring Over California' clone at Epcot more to that weakness (don't screw up something that's already a hit) than the alleged costs of a new movie.

In animation, the suits simply believe that Disney has lost its touch and no one wants to wait around for someone to find it again. So the choice was simple. Since Disney can't (or won't) create anymore then they can still market; the Pixar model. If that worked once, it will work again. Let others struggle, let other sweat the details, let others worry. All Disney has to do is put a Brand Sticker on the outside of the box and the product will sell it. Disney gets to drop all that expense dragging down the bottom line, but there will still (one hopes) plenty of product to shove through the pipeline. Revenue with end.

Well, just as long as the brand name holds out…but everyone will have bailed by then so no one really cares.




* - there's so much CGI work in newer 2D films to make the distinction between "hand drawn" & "computer" or "2D" & "3D" meaningless. It's an artistic style more than a technical difference.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Thanks for the much better view...