Sinbad narrowly misses record!!

[d-r]

The weekend box office estimates are in - Sinbad's three-day weekend of 6.8 million narrowly missed setting the record for lowest opening weekend for a wide release (>3,000 theatre) film, which is ~6.0 million (quest for camelot, wild thornberry's), to be the #3 all-time worst opening wide release film. I guess the free Shrek cd-roms at least kept this film from being the #1 bomb ever...

Also, Nemo passed Matrix:Reloaded to become the #1 film so far this year, and passed Shrek, Harry Potter 2, and the Grinch to #18 all time.

 

[Testtrack321]

Does it surprise me?

No.

I had no interest in Sinbad at all, but I did have it in Treasure Planet and even Atlantis.

 

[rwodonnell]

I guess I am surprised at least a little by the poor showing for Sinbad. I am almost as surprised by the continued strength of Nemo. I guess I am out of the mainstream, but many here have also said they rank Nemo below several of the other Pixar films, yet it's doing much better. Perhaps it just hasn't had the competition the others had? I dunno... Are people making return trips to see this movie?

 

[Planogirl]

The sad part is that many are conjecturing that the primary reason Sinbad is doing poorly is because it's traditional animation and not CGI like Nemo. This is particularly true since Sinbad is getting pretty good reviews from critics and moviegoers alike.

Can anyone hear the sound of traditional animation biting the dust now?

 

[airlarry!]

I am curious as to M. Katz's record now at Dreamworks when it comes to animation, both with and without the Shrek phenom. How much money has his tutelage made for the studio?

 

[wdwguide]

I'll have to disagree with Planogirl here - it's not a question of animation type, it's simply a bad movie. Rotten Tomatoes lists it as only 46% positive, with the "celebrity reviewers" adding up to a mere 48% positive. On the IMDB, it's at 5.7 out of 10 points. Yahoo's Critic Report Card gives it a weak B-.

 

[hopemax]

Who's been conjecturing that "it's not CGI" that's the problem? I read quite a few of the mainstream reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and the reoccuring themes were

1. Brad Pitt can't voice an animated character
2. Boring, stupid script.

 

[Planogirl]

Originally posted by wdwguide
I'll have to disagree with Planogirl here - it's not a question of animation type, it's simply a bad movie. Rotten Tomatoes lists it as only 46% positive, with the "celebrity reviewers" adding up to a mere 48% positive. On the IMDB, it's at 5.7 out of 10 points. Yahoo's Critic Report Card gives it a weak B-.

It may very well be bad as you say but I doubt that most potential movie viewers know that on the opening weekend. I didn't look at Rotten Tomatoes either, just Yahoo with a B- as you say and a 3.8 user rating both of which are still on the positive side. Charlie's Angels has a C and 2.7 while Hulk has a B- and 3.2. Of course these are different genres but I still expected Simbad to do better than it has during its opening weekend, that is at least until people found out whether it was actually any good or not.

I saw a few opinions that the look of the movie is possibly part of the initial turn off. If that is so (and that's a big if), it just doesn't seem to bode well for that type of animation.

I'm basing my comments mostly on the many reviewers that mentioned the beautiful computer drawn backgrounds with the flat and uninspiring hand drawn characters. The Yahoo article that reported the box office said "The cartoon "Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas" flopped at No. 6 with $6.8 million for the weekend and $10.0 million for the five days. The film, released by privately held DreamWorks SKG, features the voices of such big names as Brad Pitt, Michelle Pfeiffer and Catherine Zeta-Jones, but was hampered by its use of traditional animation techniques rather than the computer-animated wizardry that has turned such films as "Shrek" and "Finding Nemo" into blockbusters". I've checked some of the boards and some posters have said they thought that Sinbad would have been better if done in CGI.

I don't think so but the public's perception is what counts. If they see the trailer and it doesn't appeal, the question is what didn't appeal. Was it the characters? The storyline about pirates? Or the look of the movie?

 

[FreshTressa]

I'm wondering if it is a timing thing.......too many kids movies at once.

I know we went to charlie's angels, Finding Nemo and plan to see POTC this month. I decided not to spend the money on sinbad for my family.

 

[crusader]

Why did this movie do poorly?

All of the above.

Planogirl and FreshTressa are right on here.

There is a market for the General Audience but Nemo just soaked it up.

There is no way the number of people who already payed bigtime at the box office to see an animated feature (traditional or CGI) are going again anytime soon. It doesn't matter who voiced it or how well it was done - the money will be spent elsewhere.

 

[d-r]

Is Sinbad a pirate?

Anyway, don't worry about traditional animation, overall. Road to El Dorardo and Treasure Planet didn't kill it, and this one won't either. Brother Bear will do very well this winter, when the main competition for it will be live action cat in the hat.

The "Traditional animation" vs. "CGI" debate is like the "action adventure" idea - success it is a matter of making a good story, and also of making a story that looks appealing to people in multiple demographics. Sinbad didn't look appealing - here is another story that looks too old for little kids, and too young for big kids. It makes a bad first impression right off. It is going after too narrow a demographic. It isn't that people don't like sailing ships in animated movies, it is that this movie had a very narrow appeal - it is going after 9-12 year old boys, who see this as kiddie stuff, and they'd rather see hulk, pirates, etc. Or for that matter, when we went to see r-rated T3 the other day there were a lot of kids in there - I stuck my head in to a Sinbad screen and there were maybe 20 people total in there. In an effort to appeal to the older kids, they pack in too much action and innuendo, and end up with a PG movie that parents won't take younger kids to and older kids look at and think is for babies.

Computer animation isn't a guarentee of success. Of the 11 CGI movies that have been released aftr Toy Story, four of them (Antz, Jimmy Neutron, Final Fantasy, and Jonah VeggieTales) made under 100 million. These four movies exemplify the point - Antz and final fantasy weren't for little kids, and big kids looked at veggie tales and Jimmy Neutron and thought it was baby stuff.

During that same time frame (post 1995), major animation studio films that made under 100 million were wild thornberry's, Atlantis (~80 million), Treasure Planet, Road to El Dorado, Spirit, Sinbad, new groove (~80 mil), and titan ae. Films that made over 100 million were hunchback, mulan, tarzan, Lilo and Stich, rugrats. Prince of Egypt(101) and Hercules (99+) made about right at 100. Some of the "traditional animation" that has performed the worst is that with the most pronounced cgi elements - sinbad, spirit, treasure planet, titan ae.

No, the story here isn't traditional animation vs. cgi. It is that dreamworks animation should go looking for a-ha, frankie goes to hollywood, and the modern english in that mysterious place where one hit wonders go away to. The failure of dreamworks is not synonymous with the failure of traditional animation.

DR

 

[d-r]

Let me add that I don't disagree with planogirl that people will be saying this - I agree with her and I think they will be saying this and I've seen it already on yahoo's story. I am just saying why I don't agree with it.

 

[Razor Roman]

I got a free Shrek CD Rom this weekend, and I took my fiancee and her little brother's and sister to see "Finding Nemo"

I was kind of amused by that, but I actually was interested in seeing the Shrek CD ROM

 

[crusader]

I'm afraid Brother Bear will become extinct before it runs the first reel. Am I sad to see this trend? Yes.

Is there a market for traditional animation? There is always a market for everything. The trick will be in figuring out where and how to capitalize on it.

 

[raidermatt]

I expected a poor showing, but not this poor. I thought it would top out around $50 million or so, but its looking like $30 million would take a minor miracle.

After the failures of Atlantis and Treasure Planet, I remember several saying that action-adventure simply does not work in animation. If that's the case, Sinbad's failure has nothing to do with the type of animation used.

The WSJ has an article today that terms Sinbad's poor showing a "bad sign for traditional animation". (Page A9) Though all those involved say the story is the real determining factor in a film's succes, Dreamworks has no hand-drawn movies in the pipeline, and it lists only BB and Home on the Range for Disney.

Regarding HotR, I've only seen the stuff that was on display in the Animation Tour, and it looks to be a "different" type of story. With the inherent risk in that, it does put a lot of pressure on the Bear's shoulders.

Given the tendency of those involved to look for the simplest explanation for their failures that does not incriminate them, I suspect a poor showing for BB will be blamed on it being hand drawn, regardless of other variables.

 

[Planogirl]

I think that the true problem is a multi-faceted one as many others have stated but I still worry about the public's perception. Dreamworks and Disney have both had limited success lately while Ice Age may have been a one-hit wonder itself. Lately, only Pixar seems to be carrying the torch for animation on a consistent basis and while I'm grateful for that, where does that leave the medium? I worry for Brother Bear because it appears to be very traditional in its trailers and I just hope that the public will at least give it a chance. They don't seem to be real willing to even check out some of these movies; the interest often doesn't seem to be there.

Again, that public perception thing. And if Pixar does leave Disney....

 

[d-r]

I realized something when I watched finding nemo again, but i don't know if I can explain it, I'll try.

Finding Nemo has an emotional tinge to it. Not just what happens in the beginning to Coral and to the Marlin Jrs. and Coral Jrs. It is a touching story - it is about the relationship of a father and son. Think about Marlin when he sees Nemo captured. Or Nemo when he learns that his father is trying to find him. Think about the end when they hug, that is a very emotional moment. And it isn't just the two of them; think about Gil sulking in the Skull after Nemo is almost hurt, or Dory telling Marlin that she remembers better when he is around. There are genuine emotional highs and lows.

Now think about Lilo and Stitch. Lilo is such a touching child - we worry about her and her behavior, we feel sorry for her and her sister over the parents, we want to help them. Think about Stitch learning about family, and the theme that a family is where you make it.

How about Monster's Inc. That scene at the end where Sully comes out of Boo's closet and she looks up and says "Kitty" has me crying just typing this, and I don't cry a lot.

Think about Toy Story, Buzz learning he is just a toy is only part of the story, and so is the story about the importance of friendship. The real emotionally drawing part of the story is the toys being left behind when the child they love grows up - think about Jessie and the when she loved me song.

Tarzan - how touching is it that we watch Tarzan and his family interplayed with Kala and her family, and then Kala looses her child and raises Tarzan, Tarzan is betrayed by the humans he returns to, and it causes the death Kercheck who had finally come to accept Tarzan as his own.

Think about Hunchback - deformed and hidden, separated from human contact and hoping to find love and acceptance. The bravery of Mulan as she fights tradional roles and saves the reputation of her family.

Think about the bitter sweet sting of the classics like Dumbo, Pinnocheo, Cinderella, Bambi.

As visually striking as Atlantis is, there is not this sort of emotional depth. Treasure Planet tries hard with the John Silver - Jim Hawkins father-son betrayal thing, but for a lot of folks that didn't deliver. Spirit? He is unbreakable, but is that the same sort of level? El Dorado? Sinbad?

Even Ice Age tries to be touching, with the mammoth whose family was killed by humans saving the human boy.

I think this has something to do with it.

DR

 

[d-r]

I've thought some more about it, and I want to expand what I wrote earlier.

One of the negative reviews that I read of Sinbad basically said that it was disappointing that, unlike Shrek, this movie reverted back to a Disney template, apparently of a male hero rescuing a spunky female. That guy doesn't know what he is talking about.

The Disney formula is that someone who doesn't have a home (or has lost one) finds one (or gets it back).

They are the stories of motherless orphans, and their metaphorical counterparts. Whether they are young lions or deer or elepahants or dinosaurs or foxes, old (or new) toys, monsters, wooden boys, kidnapped puppies or orphans, street tramps (that covers at least 4 films right there), beasts and hunchbacks, circus bugs, greek gods, boys who won't grow up, or step-child princesses.

The extension of this is the motherless orphan who has to choose between one of two possible homes - the little mermaid, jungle book, tarzan - but they still find home in the end.

The Disney films that haven't followed this formula haven't done as well, e.g., the black couldran. Atlantis has a motherless princess, and treasure planet had a fatherless boy, but the search for home wasn't the central story really. Mulan doesn't fit the formula well, Emporer's new groove only slightly - the emporer learns to be "nice," which sort of finds him a home. Pocohontus doesn't really fit that well - two different cultures come together and clash, then find harmony.

The exceptions are the movies of "shorts" (e.g., ichobod and mr. toad, fantasia, make mine music, melody time, saludos amigos, 3 cabbeleros don't really follow this formula).

Even the live action/animation mixes: bedknobs and broomsticks? orphans. Pete's Dragon? Orphan. The children in mary poppins and song of the south weren't orphans, but they had a surragate parent who was kinder and wiser than their own.

The ironic part is that Shrek follows the formula - beyond that, it seems to me that Lassiter gets this, Kratzenberg doesn't.

DR

 

[d-r]

I've thought some more about this, and I have another thought to add.

I think that the "finding home" plot is central. I think it is NECESSARY for an animated film to be a financial success. - over 100 million. I do not think it is necessarily SUFFICIENT though.

I think there are several other factors that can account for the variance in animated box office - these are not necessary or sufficient for success, but can explain some portion of individual differences from film to film. In other words, you can think of them as adding bonus points or taking away points from a film.

Among these are:

The visual appeal of the animation (the cgi vs. traditional animation factor is actually here; right now cgi is fashionable)
music
celebrity voices
animals
princesses
funny sidekicks
franchise / built in audience
reputation of studio
quality and quantity of commercials / trailors
promotional tie-ins / plush
lack of something lame (like flying boats or talking vegitables)
amount of competition at release

None of these factors can ensure the success of a film, particularly if it misses the basic plot.

Here are my predictions for upcoming movies based on these theoretical criteria:

Brother Bear:
Orphan finds home, learns lesson along way.
Bonus points for: quality animation (only 1/2 points), music, animals, funny sidekicks, promotion and plush, studio, celebrity voices.
My guess: 200 million

Shrek 2:
Not sure about plot, assume it will have basic necessity.
bonus points for: animation, franchise, studio, promotion, funny sidekicks, animals, princesses, celebrity voices. Looses points for amount of competition (Spiderman 2, Potter 3).
My guess: 250 million

Sharkslayer:
I don't know if it will have plot necessary.
Bonus points for animation, studio, promotion, animals, celebrity voices (Will Smith, Gandolfini). Has a potential negative in lameness, depending on how they pull it off.
My guess: 100 million

Kim Possible:
I don't know, but I don't think it will have plot necessary.
Bonus points for animation (1/2), franchise, studio
My guess: 34 million

Over the Hedge:
I don't think it has plot. Not sure.
Bonus points for studio, animals, maybe for animation, not sure.
My guess: 60 million

Wallace and Grommit: great vegetable plot
I don't know plot.
Bonus points for franchise, studio
My guess: 70 million

Incredibles:
Assuming plot has necessary elements; I think this will come in terms of finding lost youth
Bonus points for animation, studio, promotion, tie ins, celebrity voices
My guess: 250 million

Madagascar:
it sounds like it will have the necessary plot
bonus points for animation, studio, promotion, celebrity voices, animals
My guess: 150-250 million, I don't know enough about it to pinpoint yet
Cars, chicken little, snow queen, robots:
I don't know enough about this to guess

 

[d-r]

OK I realized that there was something else I left out, and it is so basic, I have to figure that no one has bothered reading these ramblins or they would have pointed it out.

This is one of Walt's most basic lessons - the plausable impossible. Remember when Buggs Bunny said "I never studied law...you can do anything in an animated cartoon." No you can't, if you want a successful feature. If people get the impression that the events are absurd or unbelievable (like flyings ships, or spaceship copies of planet earth) they won't waste their time on it. Also, the basics of the animation has to be possible - like two solid objects not occupying the same space.

To me, some anime falls down in this regard (e.g., last year's Metropolis). This is very basic and is NECESSARY but not SUFFICIENT for a film to be successful.

But I've never seen an elephant fly, you say. The trick is it has to be *plausable.* In Dumbo, the story enables you to suspend disbelief and buy, for the purposes of the story, the big ears and a crow feather allow an elephant to fly. Absurdities like pink elephants parading or huffalumps and woozles are OK, too, if the story allows for the departure of the "reality" of the film. You can also make up the rules for your world (e.g., Spritied Away) but they have to be internally consistent.

I remember someone once saying that action films like "Treasure Planet" didn't work as animation because no one would be concerned about Jim Hawkins surfing through the air because everyone knew it was a cartoon. I didn't agree, because live action movies are also unbelievable. But this is where the plausable impossible comes in - if the story tellers have convinced you of this "reality" you can buy into it. I think this is what the idea that action doesn't work as animation is, really - when people notice that it is "action" they haven't been drawn into it. Films like Lion King or Finding Nemo aren't thought of as "action" - but it is hard to say why they aren't action films, if you try. The failure isn't the action, it is a more basic part of the story or animation.