Sir Tiki Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) But guardians made over 300WW... that's more DOM and OS than Turbo... They still lost $87 million on it though. Despite making less than Guardians, Turbo's $13.5 million loss was cushioned by its corporate sponsors, who ate the cost that DreamWorks otherwise would have taken; if they weren't there, Turbo would have lost a lot more. Take away the extra $27 million off the budget to bring it down to $100 million and DWA is in the black on the film. Edited December 3, 2014 by Sir Tiki 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonwo Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Well, I guess they could lay off their production staff and set up shop in some place that offers free money (i.e. taxpayer money via government-backed incentives) for making animation and/or pays employees very little. All of these other companies do one or the other at least, while DWA (mostly) operates out of California (Southern and Bay Area), much like WDAS and Pixar. The other problem with this and some other examples is that I don't see all that money on the screen--you only get that with some DWA movies, but they're all pretty expensive whether they look like they are or not. I think setting up satellite studios in China and India has somewhat cut the costs, at one point, the films cost $150m, the highest was Monsters Vs Aliens which cost $175m. I wonder if things get worse, which of PDI and DWA's main studio would DWA shut down to cut cost? I reckon PDI 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vc2002 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 DWA isn't doing well these days, but it's necessary to mention that Pixar is kinda going downhill as well in recent years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Tiki Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Creatively sure, but financially they're in a much better position than DreamWorks. Last year's Monsters University was their third highest-grossing film ever, and they've still yet to lose money on an animated film. DreamWorks conversely has had to take write-downs on three of their last five films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonwo Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Creatively sure, but financially they're in a much better position than DreamWorks. Last year's Monsters University was their third highest-grossing film ever, and they've still yet to lose money on an animated film. DreamWorks conversely has had to take write-downs on three of their last five films. I do wonder what will happen when Pixar has their first flop because I don't see Disney shrugging it off. Given their budgets are higher than WDAS, it might give them an excuse to try and have Pixar reduce their budgets to the same level as WDAS. I would not be surprised if The Good Dinosaur has a $200m+ budget DWA being independent are more vunerable to underperformance because they need each film to be successful whereas other animation studios are part of a larger corporation where a flop will be bad but wouldn't sink the company. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Disney Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 DWA being independent are more vunerable to underperformance because they need each film to be successful whereas other animation studios are part of a larger corporation where a flop will be bad but wouldn't sink the company. Honestly, DWA and Lionsgate would be perfect for a merger. Both studios need their films to be successful. Both studios lack what the other studio has. They fit together perfectly. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonwo Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Honestly, DWA and Lionsgate would be perfect for a merger. Both studios need their films to be successful. Both studios lack what the other studio has. They fit together perfectly. Lionsgate probably is a better position because of their other operations like television and their films aren't hugely expensive aside from Hunger Games and Divergent. I think if DWA keeps decreasing in value, it might be an attractive buy for Lionsgate. I'm surprised that DWA has never done a live action/CG hybrid film yet, we've seen with Smurfs, Alvin and most recently in the UK, Paddington that they be hugely successful and it would help diverse their film slate from just animation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 They still lost $87 million on it though. Despite making less than Guardians, Turbo's $13.5 million loss was cushioned by its corporate sponsors, who ate the cost that DreamWorks otherwise would have taken; if they weren't there, Turbo would have lost a lot more. Take away the extra $27 million off the budget to bring it down to $100 million and DWA is in the black on the film. Did they eat part of the sure to be at least 150m in distribution costs in excess of the production budget? Or the distribution fees which are probably another tens upon tens of millions on top pf that they have to let Fox keep? No, Turbo didn't make money. It wasn't a Lone Raanger disaster though. But there are so many costs nobody talks about I think this profitability calc you're doing is way off. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 I thought HTTYD 2 looked absolutely gorgeous, the settings, the alpha dragons, the finesse and details of the textures, the animation. To me, it is the most accomplished Dreamworks movie technically and artistically. Visually, it was as dense as Avatar, so many details and things to look at. A feast for the eyes and soul. Toothless id Da motherfucking Godfather now. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 HTTYD2 was aces. The reason why I'm sad this brand is so tarnished...that movie should've been mega, but I think the brand dragged it down. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 HTTYD2 was aces. The reason why I'm sad this brand is so tarnished...that movie should've been mega, but I think the brand dragged it down. HTTYD 2 was damn impressive, it shows DWA can do wonders when they want, I thought the Guardians, Kung Fu Panda 2 and the Croods had also very beautiful and cool moments, animations and visual elements. I don t subscribe to the point of view that DWA movies cost a lost and look cheap. You may not like the look and designs of the characters but on a pure technical level, DWA studios is right behind Pixar. The other studios are behind technologically to me even if the gap is not wide. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 DWA movies don't look cheap. Some of them are though aa little Saturday morning cartoon in terms of quality though and nothing more. They're not terrible...though...perhaps aa bit formulaic in many cases. Dragon 2 though...excellent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenUnicorn Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) So? It looked like a really good film, with strong characters and a good sense of humor. I'm not necessarily saying it made the film look bad, it just seemed like it was copying Cars so many (me included) likely had the "We've seen this before and they're ripping off Pixar" opinion of it. Edited December 3, 2014 by FrozenUnicorn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 I'm not necessarily saying it made the film look bad, it just seemed like it was copying Cars so many (me included) likely had the "We've seen this before and they're ripping off Pixar" opinion of it. Probably. Of course, when the Cars trailer showed I first thought....Chevron: The Movie. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BK007 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Just thought that the incredibly obvious decline now means every other studio becomes more ballsy. They can afford to play the wait & see game and Dreamworks will have to bail from their staked out release dates. Comes with the loss of reputation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloneWars Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 DWA isn't doing well these days, but it's necessary to mention that Pixar is kinda going downhill as well in recent years. pixar is doing just fine, aside from Cars 2, they have not had a film make less than $200M in 16 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 If you rank the studios according to the mean DOM BO of their last 3 movies (sometimes estimated), you get: Illumination 278m WDAS 268m (with 215 for BH6) Pixar 232m Fox 134m DW 130m (with 100m for Penguins) WB 126m Sony 113m so clearly Pixar lost its special position and DreamWorks is one of the also-rans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bapi Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 So when we'll see Shrek 5? 2017? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keysersoze123 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 If you rank the studios according to the mean DOM BO of their last 3 movies (sometimes estimated), you get: Illumination 278m WDAS 268m (with 215 for BH6) Pixar 232m Fox 134m DW 130m (with 100m for Penguins) WB 126m Sony 113m so clearly Pixar lost its special position and DreamWorks is one of the also-rans. How did you come up with illumination number. Hop just did 108m. They had one mega blockbuster franchise in DM. That is not enough to call them a power house. Pixar has been the only consistent studio to deliver so many original breakouts outside Disney and now I would call Disney/Pixar as one as Lasseter is running both. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) How did you come up with illumination number. Hop just did 108m. They had one mega blockbuster franchise in DM. That is not enough to call them a power house. Pixar has been the only consistent studio to deliver so many original breakouts outside Disney and now I would call Disney/Pixar as one as Lasseter is running both. I only used animated movies and Hop is mixed. So they only have 3 movies, which does not make them a power house, but they lead this list, What can you do? And you think Pixar has taken over Disney? Edited December 3, 2014 by Rudolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
