Dreamworks Animation: What Went Wrong?

[Jonwo]

Isn't it the separate live-action DreamWorks that distributes through Disney? DWA currently has a distribution deal with Fox, and I seriously doubt that Katzenberg would want to deal with Disney and vice versa (bad blood and all)--the only way that DWA would distribute through Disney is if Disney bought DWA, and I seriously doubt that this would happen, either.

 

SKG is distributed by Disney although Fox have distributed Lincoln and the upcoming St James Place internationally so clearly Spielberg is okay with Fox but given the poor film performance. Disney probably must be regretting agreeing to distribute their films since only three have worked out. 

 

I doubt DWA would be bought by Disney and Katzenberg wouldn't go there unless it was a last resort and even then I think they're happy with just WDAS and Pixar. Wasn't Sony interested in distributing DWA films, Warner Bros who I think would be the best studio to buy DWA wasn't interested in distributing their films and given the success of The Lego Movie are likely want to focus on their animation arm

[Melvin Frohike]

I doubt DWA would be bought by Disney and Katzenberg wouldn't go there unless it was a last resort

Well, hypothetically, Katzenberg might come back to Disney with DWA in tow if they gave him John Lasseter's job. But of course that is NOT going to happen.

 

and even then I think they're happy with just WDAS and Pixar.

Yeah, Disney is almost certainly not interested in acquiring DWA anyway. The only reason I can think of would be if they wanted to immediately increase their market share against a surprisingly increasing number of competitors, but they've been burned enough working with other animation studios, in addition to facing their own troubles with WDAS in the past (largely caused by the parent company) and to a lesser degree Pixar currently (although it hasn't hurt their box office yet), to be very careful about any acquisitions. People might have criticized Bob Iger in years past for going on an expensive shopping spree with Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm, but I think that the results so far have shown that these were very well considered purchases (still have to see about Lucasfilm, but there aren't many doubters of Disney's strategy left).

With WDAS and Pixar, Disney is very well positioned, even if DisneyToon folds like it might (mostly did direct-to-video stuff anyway) and Lucasfilm Animation doesn't work out in the theatrical feature animation market. DWA has a lot of talent and potential, to be sure, but the only possible way that Disney would ever own it is if Katzenberg were eventually forced to sell it for cheap and remove himself from the equation, probably to another entity first and then to Disney through another acquisition. Probably another major studio or conglomerate would have bought DWA before that would happen, though.

 

Wasn't Sony interested in distributing DWA films,

They were, but I guess Fox offered DWA a better deal. Man, Fox is really determined to get the largest share of this market. I think they even talked to DWA about purchasing them not long ago, but like every other such deal thus far, that one fell apart.

 

Warner Bros who I think would be the best studio to buy DWA wasn't interested in distributing their films and given the success of The Lego Movie are likely want to focus on their animation arm

Paramount has been starting up their own feature animation studio, too. Going from history, it is amazing to me how many players there are and are going to be in this market.

[Melvin Frohike]

I seriously doubt that Katzenberg would want to deal with Disney and vice versa (bad blood and all)

Come to think of it, I might have to at least partially take this back because DWA has made deals with the ABC network (e.g. Shrek the Halls), which is of course owned by Disney. So it's not that any possible connection with Disney would preclude Katzenberg from making a deal, although I still think that distributing DWA's animated features to theaters would be a different matter.

[Jonwo]

Well, hypothetically, Katzenberg might come back to Disney with DWA in tow if they gave him John Lasseter's job. But of course that is NOT going to happen.

 

Yeah, Disney is almost certainly not interested in acquiring DWA anyway. The only reason I can think of would be if they wanted to immediately increase their market share against a surprisingly increasing number of competitors, but they've been burned enough working with other animation studios, in addition to facing their own troubles with WDAS in the past (largely caused by the parent company) and to a lesser degree Pixar currently (although it hasn't hurt their box office yet), to be very careful about any acquisitions. People might have criticized Bob Iger in years past for going on an expensive shopping spree with Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm, but I think that the results so far have shown that these were very well considered purchases (still have to see about Lucasfilm, but there aren't many doubters of Disney's strategy left).

With WDAS and Pixar, Disney is very well positioned, even if DisneyToon folds like it might (mostly did direct-to-video stuff anyway) and Lucasfilm Animation doesn't work out in the theatrical feature animation market. DWA has a lot of talent and potential, to be sure, but the only possible way that Disney would ever own it is if Katzenberg were eventually forced to sell it for cheap and remove himself from the equation, probably to another entity first and then to Disney through another acquisition. Probably another major studio or conglomerate would have bought DWA before that would happen, though.

Paramount has been starting up their own feature animation studio, too. Going from history, it is amazing to me how many players there are and are going to be in this market.

 

Marvel and Lucasfilm seems to be Disney's way of trying to attain franchises that appealed to boys and men, aside from Pirates and Cars, they struggled to find boy centric franchises whereas the girl market is pretty much wrapped up. It is also why they bought Maker as well. 

 

Think Shrek the Hall was the only DWA on ABC, everything else has aired on either NBC or Fox,

 

Paramount has dabbled in animation with films based on TV series like Rugrats, Jimmy Neutron, Spongebob etc and original films like Rango and Tintin although it's funny that the first two films from Paramount Animation are both hybrids of live action and animation, Monster Trucks sounds like it more like Transformers than an animated film. 

 

I always wonder what happened between Paramount and DWA as they were pretty successful together in terms of Paramount distributing their films, did Paramount want an increase in distribution fee or did DWA want to cut it and Paramount weren't willing.

[Sir Tiki]

I always wonder what happened between Paramount and DWA as they were pretty successful together in terms of Paramount distributing their films, did Paramount want an increase in distribution fee or did DWA want to cut it and Paramount weren't willing.

 

Paramount apparently wanted a larger percentage of DWA's profits, and that led to the split. I think it was easy at the time for both studios to break up, since in July of 2012 (when the split was announced) they both looked to have a pretty bright future: Paramount now had ILM (who had done Rango) and DWA was boasting about how great and sure-fire their new, ambitious lineup of three films a year was going to be. Then of course it all kind of fell apart just months later - Disney bought Lucasfilm in October and got ILM, leaving Paramount to have to start their own animation studio from scratch, and DWA ended up losing a ton of money on Rise of the Guardians in December, pushing them into the rut that they've been in ever since.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/entertainment/la-et-ct-dreamworks-animation-sony-20120712

Edited November 21, 2014 by Sir Tiki

[Melvin Frohike]

Paramount apparently wanted a larger percentage of DWA's profits, and that led to the split.

DWA wanted Paramount to take an even smaller percentage of the revenues than they had been, which was already below the industry average, and Paramount naturally wanted a better deal, so the two sides could not have been farther apart.

 

I think it was easy at the time for both studios to break up, since in July of 2012 (when the split was announced) they both looked to have a pretty bright future: Paramount now had ILM (who had done Rango) and DWA was boasting about how great and sure-fire their new, ambitious lineup of three films a year was going to be.

That's probably why they both demanded more from the other, although DWA, as usual, was being more cheeky because Paramount had already been taking a below-average percentage.

[BK007]

Well, hypothetically, Katzenberg might come back to Disney with DWA in tow if they gave him John Lasseter's job. But of course that is NOT going to happen.

 

Yeah, Disney is almost certainly not interested in acquiring DWA anyway. The only reason I can think of would be if they wanted to immediately increase their market share against a surprisingly increasing number of competitors, but they've been burned enough working with other animation studios, in addition to facing their own troubles with WDAS in the past (largely caused by the parent company) and to a lesser degree Pixar currently (although it hasn't hurt their box office yet), to be very careful about any acquisitions. People might have criticized Bob Iger in years past for going on an expensive shopping spree with Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm, but I think that the results so far have shown that these were very well considered purchases (still have to see about Lucasfilm, but there aren't many doubters of Disney's strategy left).

With WDAS and Pixar, Disney is very well positioned, even if DisneyToon folds like it might (mostly did direct-to-video stuff anyway) and Lucasfilm Animation doesn't work out in the theatrical feature animation market. DWA has a lot of talent and potential, to be sure, but the only possible way that Disney would ever own it is if Katzenberg were eventually forced to sell it for cheap and remove himself from the equation, probably to another entity first and then to Disney through another acquisition. Probably another major studio or conglomerate would have bought DWA before that would happen, though.

 

They were, but I guess Fox offered DWA a better deal. Man, Fox is really determined to get the largest share of this market. I think they even talked to DWA about purchasing them not long ago, but like every other such deal thus far, that one fell apart.

 

Paramount has been starting up their own feature animation studio, too. Going from history, it is amazing to me how many players there are and are going to be in this market.

 

The critique is not so much of what was being bought but why.

 

And it's not from shareholders, but people who wanted to see more movies from Disney. 

 

Given, they make a lot of forgettable fluff, and I can't name even one movie...(oh, a Touchstone film "Enemy of the State") that I would still like present day, but it was the cutting out of all the mid-tier films or concept films, or any films that weren't already based on a brand that people opposed. At the end of the day, it's great for Disney because they really do nothing and just get profits from two animation studios, one superhero studio and Star Wars, but what else are they producing is the real question and it's really nothing. (Some films branded with Disney are from Dreamworks now too)

 

So, really, the opponents were right. Disney have switched their focus completely to making blockbusters. They make a lot of money, but they have nothing else in the closet. It's the perfect consumer mindset. Easily disposable entertainment. They are not an auteur studio but then again, besides Walt, they never were. 

[Melvin Frohike]

The critique is not so much of what was being bought but why.

Actually, as a Disney fan, I had criticized what, as well, and still do (for example I don't think that Marvel is a good fit, and I'm not a big Marvel fan anyway, even now). But I was talking about value, and I recall some people thinking that Disney overpaid for what they got at the time (even Pixar given that price tag).

 

And it's not from shareholders, but people who wanted to see more movies from Disney.

As a shareholder I saw the value of what Iger was doing (and it sure hasn't hurt my finances any since then), but as a fan, yes I was concerned about Disney becoming even more of a faceless collection of random studios and brands, and this concern remains (Iger is actually concerned about this, too, but he did what he felt needed to be done at the time). Anyway, my point was that these were, in retrospect, excellent deals despite what was paid, and I doubt that the same is true of DWA right now, even at its current market capitalization, let alone what Katzenberg is seeking.

 

 

At the end of the day, it's great for Disney because they really do nothing and just get profits from two animation studios, one superhero studio and Star Wars, but what else are they producing is the real question and it's really nothing. (Some films branded with Disney are from Dreamworks now too)

Wait, who is "they?" "Disney" is a big corporation and has been for some time--"they" do nothing regardless, but the production studios that they own are a part of "Disney" too, so it's not like "Disney" does nothing in that sense. The real Disney died a long time ago, arguably with Walt's passing, but WDAS survives and the theme parks are still around, and to me this is what remains of the real "Disney" so at least in this sense "they" still do something.

 

As for what else "they" do, doesn't the live-action studio produce those cheesy but lucrative live-action fairy tale movies? Whatever the case, I'd hardly define "Disney" as the live-action Disney studio above all else, especially since the house brand itself has always been more associated with animation and theme parks (at least since 1955 for the latter).

 

So, really, the opponents were right.

Right about some things that would happen, but not necessarily about how best to fix the broken Disney that Iger inherited. And I wasn't talking about those opponents anyway.

 

Disney have switched their focus completely to making blockbusters. They make a lot of money, but they have nothing else in the closet. It's the perfect consumer mindset. Easily disposable entertainment. They are not an auteur studio but then again, besides Walt, they never were.

Walt died in 1966, and thawing him now would be premature given the limitations of medical science and technology that we have today.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Melvin Frohike

[BK007]

There has been a lot of discussion going on, but in daily/weekend/movie threads. Time to localize it and expand on it.

 

So instead of just Mr Peabody or How to Train Your Dragon 2 or Penguins of Madagascar, I'm sure everyone can agree that this question has been a long time coming.

 

The bottom of the barrel fell out with Rise of the Guardians in November 2012. Surprising, perhaps because that Dreamworks had an upturn in critical approval from Dragon to MegaMind to Panda 2 to Puss and Madagascar 3. All were fresh, even Guardians itself.

 

Strikes against that movie (though I thought it would make $250m due to being an Avengers fairytale movie) was the critique of its animation style that looked very ugly in screenshots and pre-release pictures and the release of Wreck It Ralph. In the end, no one could have imagined how bad it really got with it becoming one of the lowest grossing pictures in the Dreamworks canon, saved only by some Christmas legs, that weren't even that strong in comparison to previous movies.

 

The Croods came out in March of 2013 and was well received by both audiences and critics alike and nearly repeated the HTTYD legs seen 3 years earlier. All was well? Not so.

 

Turbo, to be released that summer, was looking like a major bomb. Monsters Uni and Despicable Me 2 had staked out great release dates and Turbo was the last to come out. But that didn't take away from what a non-event it would be even without competition. Yes, Pixar made stories about a rat cooking, a robot finding love and a boy and an octagenrian going to Venezuela but making a movie about a snail that takes part in Nascar racing? It's a race story, it's about an underdog, it's about getting supernatural powers...everything about it is predictable and whilst it was not the over-the-top and in-your-face brash humour and storytelling, it was completely and utterly forgettable. Failing to make $85m, it probably is the least attended Dreamworks CGI film and probably the second or third bottom taking into account hand drawn flicks too.

 

It could be a one off? But then Guardians had already dropped the bar from a low of Puss In Boot's $134m to $103m. Now they couldn't even guarantee $100m...

 

Mr. Peabody had a great premise even if the characters were based on some shorts in the 1960s, but you didn't have to know that to want to watch it. It received decent reviews, but opened below movies like Rango and Rio and even lower than PIB's disappointing OW in 2011. The super successes of Frozen and Lego Movie made it look even worse. The story itself wasn't great even if it was passable and perhaps this further solidifies people's extreme nonchalance about Dreamworks and their product. There is nothing to look forward to or anticipate. The brand itself has become synonymous with irrelevance and that stigma is almost close to irreversible. The only way to reverse such mentality is to continuously bat it out of the park. Pixar and Disney have built reputations. None of the other studios are well known enough for people to either say they're good or they're bad, Dreamworks has hit a critical point and audiences seem to have deserted them en masse. Only one person to blame.

 

HTTYD2 would be the saviour, the $1b hit, sequel to the critically acclaimed WOM hit in 2010 and a barren summer. In the end, it failed to even match the Croods and did barely better than the massively disappointing KFP2. Critical reviews were great. Audience reception was great. But the damage had been done. The TV show didn't help in making the movie a non-event. And so the follies of Dreamworks and J Katz were exposed further. Diversification had caused a detrimental effect on box office. This was surely to be followed up with Penguins.

 

And so it did. I, myself, thought Home would be decent, funny enough to do at least $100m, but it was pulled and Penguins pushed up, and to no avail. Penguins, with dated animation, a release far too late and with a long running TV show spelt disaster and so it was. Being outdone by Guardians, the notorious bomb from 2 years ago when you take into account inflation. It may not even get the legs that got meaning another movie, a franchise one at that, failing to make $100m. Blue Sky have not yet had a film under $100m, nor Illumination. The gravy train has ground to a halt.

 

Home, already pushed back, quivers in its March date. BOO has left summer 2015 with no release date in sight. On the horizon, a sequel to the massively disappointing KFP2 takes on Star Wars. It'll be a slaughterhouse. Upcoming titles like Boss Baby and Captain Underpants look like they'll only appeal to the Pooh demographic. Dreamworks have lost the plot.

 

On a side note, I forget to mention that Kung Fu Panda 2 was the first sign of trouble. Guardians was when it was realized. But, to this day, KFP2 remains one of the most befuddling disappointments ever. I don't think the TV show was out yet...or was it? The first was well received, it was well reviewed. Some stated that marketing dropped the ball. Perhaps Hangover 2 made a difference too. In fact, the tale of the animated sequel has only ended happily for Ice Age 2, Shrek 2, Toy Story 2/3 and Despicable Me 2. That could be another reason. Then again, most of the sequels that have failed to match their predecessors have had more widely recognized reasons for doing so. Only Panda 2 and now Dragon 2, both of Dreamworks have inexplicably dropped hard despite being two of the most popular franchises around.

 

 

[CloneWars]

Great thread.

 

I have no idea what has caused DW's downfall. I think a lot of had to do with Shrek and them running it into the ground and then as you said making meh products, not bad, but not great. DW tarnished their own brand and people stopped giving them second and third chances. It doesn't help that Pixar kept its momentum and then with Tangled and now Frozen, Disney has come back in full force. Plus, DW hasn't really done anything innovative. Pixar pushed the bar with innovative ideas for animated films. Even though not-Pixar, The Lego Movie is also pretty innovative. Nothing that DW puts out screams really original to me.

Edited December 1, 2014 by CloneWars

[Spidey Freak]

Katzenberg's ego and utter lack of instinct when it comes to creative management and control. Penguins of Madagascar is the definition of lazy cashgrab, and I'm one of the most forgiving people when it comes to popcorn entertainment. 

Edited December 1, 2014 by Spidey Freak

[edroger3]

History of Dreamworks animation

 

Title                         Year  Budget         WW gross       Ratio

1 Shrek 2                     2004  $150.000.000   $919.838.758   6,13
2 Shrek the Third             2007  $160.000.000   $798.958.162   4,99
3 Shrek Forever After         2010  $165.000.000   $752.600.867   4,56
4 Madagascar 3                2012  $145.000.000   $746.921.274   5,15
5 Kung Fu Panda 2             2011  $150.000.000   $665.692.281   4,44
6 Kung Fu Panda               2008  $130.000.000   $631.744.560   4,86
7 How to Train Your Dragon 2  2014  $145.000.000   $618.741.102   4,27
8 Madagascar 2                2008  $150.000.000   $603.900.354   4,03
9 The Croods                  2013  $135.000.000   $587.204.668   4,35
10 Puss in Boots              2011  $130.000.000   $554.987.477   4,27
11 Madagascar                 2005   $75.000.000   $532.680.671   7,10
12 How to Train Your Dragon   2010  $165.000.000   $494.878.759   3,00
13 Shrek                      2001   $60.000.000   $484.409.218   8,07
14 Monsters vs. Aliens        2009  $175.000.000   $381.509.870   2,18
15 Shark Tale                 2004   $75.000.000   $367.275.019   4,90
16 Over the Hedge             2006   $80.000.000   $336.002.996   4,20
17 Megamind                   2010  $130.000.000   $321.885.765   2,48
18 Rise of the Guardians      2012  $145.000.000   $306.941.670   2,12
19 Bee Movie                  2007  $150.000.000   $287.594.577   1,92
20 Turbo                      2013  $127.000.000   $282.570.682   2,22
21 Mr. Peabody & Sherman      2014  $145.000.000   $272.912.430   1,88
22 Chicken Run                2000   $45.000.000   $224.834.564   5,00
23 The Prince of Egypt        1998   $70.000.000   $218.613.188   3,12
24 Wallace & Gromit           2005   $30.000.000   $192.610.372   6,42
25 Flushed Away               2006  $149.000.000   $178.120.010   1,20
26 Antz                       1998  $105.000.000   $171.757.863   1,64
27 Spirit                     2002   $80.000.000   $122.563.539   1,53
29 Sinbad                     2003   $60.000.000    $80.767.884   1,35
30 The Road to El Dorado      2000   $95.000.000    $76.432.727   0,80

[BK007]

Why did Shrek 2's budget go up by more than 100%?

 

And also Bee Movie went up by nearly 100% from Over the Hedge?

[CJohn]

Time for Over the Edge 2.

[Klingo]

Too bad they couldn't make this as a movie under their control.  Something new in a way.

[Jonwo]

I think the combination of tougher competition and complacentcy has led to their current situation plus being independent means they need each film to be successful.

[cookie]

Good post, but I have to correct that Puss in Boots made 149m, not 134m. The low bar would've been Bee Movie with 126m.

[Goffe]

Also, the animation quality is getting worse and worse every year. There's a reason for that, they are making their movies in other countries, to reduce costs and to meet the "3 movies a year" strategy.

 

You can't just lower the animation quality and expect your films to be a big blockbuster by default

[Goffe]

Too bad they couldn't make this as a movie under their control.  Something new in a way.

a film like this would never make money domestically. Too anime-ish for American taste and too heavily targeted to boys.

[Spidey Freak]

Also, the animation quality is getting worse and worse every year. There's a reason for that, they are making their movies in other countries, to reduce costs and to meet the "3 movies a year" strategy.

 

You can't just lower the animation quality and expect your films to be a big blockbuster by default

 

Naah, GA doesn't give a damn about animation quality unless it is incredibly tacky and noticeable. Otherwise Big Hero 6 would be a much bigger film than Frozen.

 

Now Dreamworks scripts on the other hand keep ranging from mediocre to terrible. Maybe they should outsource their writing too.