Dreamworks Animation: What Went Wrong?

[keysersoze123]

I wouldn't put so much on one man, especially one who expressly desires to keep these studios' identities separate, as Lasseter does. Each studio has its own history, its own separate staff and facilities (although they do occasionally use the same writers, who play a secondary role in these productions), and more importantly its own culture.

 

Lasseter lives in both worlds now, but he originally came from WDAS, so who is really running whom? And Disney owns Pixar anyway, so Lasseter reports to Disney CEO Robert Iger. The answer is neither--Lasseter does different things with each studio, as he does with DisneyToon Studios, which he also runs from a creative perspective. All three studios are distinct entities despite sharing the same leadership, and Lasseter's relationship with each is also distinct.

 

He works for Disney now, not just Pixar or WDAS. Frozen was made by WDAS, not Pixar, just like Monsters University (random recent example) was made by Pixar, not WDAS, even if there is one guy who happened to work on both (both studios have a few staffers who came from the other, but then again the same is true of DWA, so are they the same studio, too?). If one of these studios comes up with a turd, then is the other equally responsible?

You can look at this any way that you want, but Pixar and WDAS are certainly intended to be separate studios, and based on the physical reality as well as the movies they make, I see no reason to lump them together as one. While we're on the subject, contrary to popular belief neither studio, by rule, ever contributes a single frame to the movies of the other, and each has their own proprietary production processes and technology (although on occasion they will share some technology, such as WDAS' powerful new renderer Hyperion, which for the time being will, unlike Pixar's RenderMan, be kept proprietary to WDAS and now shared with Pixar to give them both an edge over the competition--however this is an exception rather than the rule).

 

Right, Illumination shot out of the gate with a phenomenon, but it's too early to tell what they will be able to sustain, and frankly their movies are not compelling enough, in my opinion, to suggest that this is more than a fluke (maybe it isn't, to be fair, but we'll have to wait and see). They have had one other pretty big hit in the DOM market, The Lorax, but it did very poorly in the OS market in comparison, so the jury is still out.

 

Yeah, maybe by themselves, too, moving forward....

 

Still does not change the fact that lasseter runs the disney animation and deserves some credit for their comeback. Iger being CEO is not hands on involved in WDAS. I agree animators themselves are kept separate and each follow different DNA but Lasseter is heavily involved both the places.

 

FYI for your reference.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/pixar-disney-animation-john-lasseters-661752

 

 

 

Disney's $7.4 billion acquisition of Pixar in 2006 put rival siblings under the same man, Pixar co-founder John Lasseter, working alongside Ed Catmull. Splitting time between Pixar in Emeryville, Calif., and Disney's Burbank lot, Lasseter gets credit for breathing life into WDAS, which stumbled through the 2000s with such flops as Home on the Range, Chicken Little and Meet the Robinsons. But some question whether he is stretched too thin as his studios and other parts of the Disney empire, including consumer products and park design, vie for his attention.

Borrowing a page from Pixar, Lasseter is hands-on at WDAS. He gives extensive notes, pores over story reels and even does the first reading with actors and directors. Initially, Pixar animators worried that he was spending too much time at Disney, where he overhauled Bolt and Tangled. Now that the situation has stabilized, he divides his focus. "Both places think he spends too much time at the other place," says a friend. "That's the true telling point."

 

Edited December 4, 2014 by keysersoze123

[CloneWars]

It's hard to eliminate random effects like Despicable Me 2 and especially Frozen with a sample size of 3. Well, the latter is not entirely random, being a Disney princess musical and all, but this phenomenon is definitely an outlier as a data point, let's just put it that way. This is for the present, and for the near future, Pixar, based on past history, will likely stay the same (or pull ahead with those monstrous sequels) while the others fall back.

 

That's another problem with your argument. DM2 and Frozen are outlier films. When looking at how well a studio is doing you can't just look at the past 3, especially when outlier films are involved. You have to look at the picture as a whole. To be honest, I forgot Illumination existed until this thread. DW is in a decline. Pixar had one financial misfire with Cars 2, but since then both Brave and MU have put up typical Pixar numbers. Disney has shown some consistency since Tangled. Wreck-It Ralph made $189M, so just a tad under $200M. BH6 is going to make over $200M, so it seems WDAS has made a comeback.

 

If next year, the two Pixar films do poorly, then we can also discuss Pixar being in a decline or not the top studio or whatever. But, if both films make over $200M, then that means they are still top dog. WDAS still needs a couple more films to make sure they are proven and didn't get lucky with Frozen.

 

Also, you brought up sequels for Pixar. There plan is one sequel and one original film each year. Their plan isn't going perfectly, but I think come 2017, we will see this in effect more. 

[Fancyarcher]

That's another problem with your argument. DM2 and Frozen are outlier films. When looking at how well a studio is doing you can't just look at the past 3, especially when outlier films are involved. You have to look at the picture as a whole. To be honest, I forgot Illumination existed until this thread. DW is in a decline. Pixar had one financial misfire with Cars 2, but since then both Brave and MU have put up typical Pixar numbers. Disney has shown some consistency since Tangled. Wreck-It Ralph made $189M, so just a tad under $200M. BH6 is going to make over $200M, so it seems WDAS has made a comeback.

 

If next year, the two Pixar films do poorly, then we can also discuss Pixar being in a decline or not the top studio or whatever. But, if both films make over $200M, then that means they are still top dog. WDAS still needs a couple more films to make sure they are proven and didn't get lucky with Frozen.

 

Also, you brought up sequels for Pixar. There plan is one sequel and one original film each year. Their plan isn't going perfectly, but I think come 2017, we will see this in effect more. 

 

Cars 2 made money especially with merchandising which was huge, otherwise they wouldn't be considering a third Cars in the first place.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Saintarcher

[Jonwo]

Cars merchandise sales is probably Disney's most successful consumer product that isn't Princesses, Marvel or Star Wars. Why do think Planes exists? 

 

I do think the 2016 films will be a real test of whether the Illumination brand extends beyond DM and Dr Seuss but I think Illumination is more like Blue Sky rather than Pixar and DWA in that they have one successful franchise and their other films perform decently plus I believe they plan to expand beyond animated films in the future, Hop was a hybrid and they have a few live action ideas in the pipeline.

[AniNate]

You need at least five films to be able to really assess a certain studio's standing within the industry. Though since Minions will likely be a hit I think it's safe to say that the DM franchise will keep Illumination afloat for the forseeable future.

[Melvin Frohike]

Still does not change the fact that lasseter runs the disney animation and deserves some credit for their comeback.

Lasseter deserves a lot of credit, but he is one guy who happens to work with and creatively manage both studios. Pixar as a whole did not take over, absorb, or commune with WDAS to become one with them. Actually, that was one option presented to Lasseter when he came back to Disney and assessed what was going on in WDAS--to effectively close WDAS and have its remnant operate as either an integral part or subsidiary of Pixar, but his reaction was like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s

He was NOT going to allow that to happen (Lasseter is a huge fan of WDAS, and working there, as an assistant to Glen Keane back in the day, was his dream job until he was fired by some stupid long-gone executive), and it wasn't what Iger wanted when he acquired Pixar, anyway (Iger wanted WDAS fixed, pronto, and wanted Lasseter to do it). I don't speak for John, of course, but if you asked him I am sure that he would tell you that lumping WDAS and Pixar together does not make conceptual sense.

 

Iger being CEO is not hands on involved in WDAS.

I'm just saying that there are many ways of looking at this.

 

I agree animators themselves are kept separate and each follow different DNA but Lasseter is heavily involved both the places.

No doubt about it, and some would argue that he's too involved in both, but that's another topic.

 

FYI for your reference.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/pixar-disney-animation-john-lasseters-661752

I'm pretty familiar with what he does. And like most everybody else, he doesn't do everything the same when he works at different places--even his personal creative input differs, in addition to the relationship he has with each studio. Lasseter knows the difference between WDAS and Pixar, and personally wants to keep them distinct, so he acts accordingly. As a separate matter, from what I've heard his relationship with WDAS of late has been a lot more positive, while with Pixar there is still some strain that he is trying to address (at least as of last year). It's no secret (although not everybody actually realizes) that Pixar has struggled to groom new filmmakers, and several have departed after having been yanked from their projects (Brenda Chapman being the best known example, but there were several others). Meanwhile, at WDAS there were several notable departures not long after Lasseter came in, but since then it has been smooth sailing (even with their movies underperforming at the box office prior to Tangled, Lasseter was happy with WDAS' old and new filmmakers alike, and his faith has finally paid off at the box office).

Edited December 4, 2014 by Melvin Frohike

[Melvin Frohike]

That's another problem with your argument.

Are you sure you mean MY argument?

 

DM2 and Frozen are outlier films. When looking at how well a studio is doing you can't just look at the past 3, especially when outlier films are involved. You have to look at the picture as a whole.

But that was my point--that even an assessment of their current status requires consideration of the bigger picture. I wasn't making the argument that you're apparently addressing--I was responding to it with similar points to yours.

 

To be honest, I forgot Illumination existed until this thread.

Yeah, it's funny how easy that can be, especially considering how just last year Despicable Me 2 was practically a billion-dollar mega-blockbuster. I'm not trying to be condescending toward them, but obviously they haven't had enough of a chance yet to build up a reputation, one way or the other. Now, maybe if any of their movies had WOWED me, then that would be different (slightly), but it hasn't happened yet.

 

DW is in a decline. Pixar had one financial misfire with Cars 2,

And even then Cars 2 performed well by most standards at the box office and made a killing in merchandise.

 

Disney has shown some consistency since Tangled. Wreck-It Ralph made $189M, so just a tad under $200M. BH6 is going to make over $200M, so it seems WDAS has made a comeback.

They've made a comeback at the box office, finally, but in my opinion WDAS began recovering creatively very shortly after Lasseter came in. That's a credit to him, to be sure, but a lot of it was removing the executives who had been dictating what they did for some time, and reminding WDAS of how a studio should function--the studio did the rest, and it's not as though they had never done it before or lacked the talent to do so. Some of Pixar's processes were grafted onto WDAS, but they're really refinements to things that WDAS had done before, which Pixar actually had to learn themselves during Toy Story's challenging development--Joe Ranft, who had worked in story on several of the Disney Renaissance movies, came over to Pixar and got them squared away, after which he joined them and helped further refine the processes that would come back to WDAS later via Lasseter.

 

If next year, the two Pixar films do poorly, then we can also discuss Pixar being in a decline or not the top studio or whatever.

Well, we could still discuss the creative side independently of the financial side, of course. While this forum obviously focuses on the latter, being about box office and all, creative "mojo" can have long-term effects on financial results in terms of reputation. Just because Pixar has been able to shrug off at the box office any decline in their creative mojo (albeit barely in the case of Cars 2), this can't go on forever, as we saw first with the major awards last year with Monsters University's snubs for nominations, and we may someday see at the box office if they don't get back on track soon. WDAS once seemed invincible, too, but they weren't. Fortunately Pixar is, for all the issues they face, in a better position and corporate environment than WDAS was when they began their decline around the turn of the century, so a disaster can still be averted.

 

Also, you brought up sequels for Pixar. There plan is one sequel and one original film each year.

As I recall, the plan was stated to be three movies every two years with one of them being a sequel, but if we look at their slate it sure seems more like the inverse ratio, with two of the three being sequels. Maybe they have some super-secret original movies in development, which would hardly be surprising, but there must be a bunch of them if they want to do what they set out to do anytime soon.

 

Their plan isn't going perfectly, but I think come 2017, we will see this in effect more.

But what about their costs? Something has to give. All of these sequels--the really big ones in particular--seem to be intended to delay the inevitable, whatever that may turn out to be. What they really want, I think, is to develop enough great filmmakers to make more original movies at a faster rate, and their sequel-heavy strategy buys them some time to try to do this, but it is easier said than done and will take some luck, too.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Melvin Frohike

[Jonwo]

 

Yeah, it's funny how easy that can be, especially considering how just last year Despicable Me 2 was practically a billion-dollar mega-blockbuster.   I'm not trying to be condescending toward them, but obviously they haven't had enough of a chance yet to build up a reputation, one way or the other. Now, maybe if any of their movies had WOWED me, then that would be different (slightly), but it hasn't happened yet.

They've made a comeback at the box office, finally, but in my opinion WDAS began recovering creatively very shortly after Lasseter came in. That's a credit to him, to be sure, but a lot of it was removing the executives who had been dictating what they did for some time, and reminding WDAS of how a studio should function--the studio did the rest, and it's not as though they had never done it before or lacked the talent to do so. Some of Pixar's processes were grafted onto WDAS, but they're really refinements to things that WDAS had done before, which Pixar actually had to learn themselves during Toy Story's challenging development--Joe Ranft, who had worked in story on several of the Disney Renaissance movies, came over to Pixar and got them squared away, after which he joined them and helped further refine the processes that would come back to WDAS later via Lasseter. 

 

While Despicable Me is the golden goose for Universal and Illumination, I hope Chris Meladrandri realise that they can't just rely on it otherwise they might be the same situation as DWA is in at the moment in 5-10 years time but Meladrandri seems more likeable in comparison to Katzenberg despite having success with Illumination and before that Fox Animation/Blue Sky but he had a huge bomb in Titans AE back in the 90s and anyone who can recover from something like that knows what they are doing. 

 

WDAS was in a sorry state by 2006, Chicken Little was successful but it was mauled by critics and they were being overshadowed by DWA, Pixar and Blue Sky and I think it would have been easy to either shut down WDAS and just have Pixar or merge the two but I think Lasseter didn't to see it die and actually the changes they made with the Story Trust amongst other things has let them regain their mojo and success from Tangled onwards, there has been blips but that hasn't stopped the studio and they are making advances with technology with shorts like Paperman and Feast, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a feature film that has a similar style to those two shorts

[Melvin Frohike]

WDAS was in a sorry state by 2006, Chicken Little was successful but it was mauled by critics

And rightfully so, as this movie is such a mess. At times it looks like it was made by somebody who had some idea of what they were doing, and then it tries to be something else entirely--something that tries and fails to be like the sorrier of its competitors with things like random dance scenes but ends up looking like an animated B-movie, and then it goes back to momentarily seeming competent. It's easy enough to see from its intro that there was some kind of weird identity crisis going on inside WDAS--if you don't know what you are anymore and are trying to be something else, then how could you know what you're doing?

 

and they were being overshadowed by DWA, Pixar and Blue Sky and I think it would have been easy to either shut down WDAS and just have Pixar or merge the two

WDAS already had the personnel to be a world-class animation studio (it's funny that like a hundred people who worked on Chicken Little also worked on Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph, and Frozen, including some key story artists )--I mean, the Disney Renaissance was not that far removed in time--but they needed to have the confidence to do what they knew how to do, updated for the times as they had always done before, but still Disney and still based on quality storytelling rather than all of that cheesy crap they desperately tried to cobble together.

 

but I think Lasseter didn't to see it die and actually the changes they made with the Story Trust amongst other things has let them regain their mojo and success from Tangled onwards,

Lasseter had to make a hard assessment on whether WDAS still had enough pieces in place to rebuild, but I think that one way or another he would refuse to shut it down, so he decided to put his faith in the people they had and what they could do without somebody dictating to them what supposedly, arbitrarily appealed to the masses. Things like the Story Trust certainly helped, but it's not as though WDAS hadn't done such peer reviews before--this was just the next logical step in that direction. I'm not saying that Lasseter didn't have his work cut out for him, but honestly it didn't take long for WDAS to go back to doing what they knew how to do--they just needed to be told that it was the right thing to do, which is, you know, making good Disney animated features. Yes, this may sound silly, but that's what it was, in a nutshell, and it was something that they and many others didn't think would work. Seriously, people were thinking that WDAS movies were hopelessly outmoded, despite the wild success they had enjoyed just a decade earlier.

DWA (via PDI) had their foot on WDAS' neck, making a killing at the box office from making Disney animated features look stupid, essentially, but Lasseter, old Disney fan and WDAS hand that he was, had faith that the public still wanted what WDAS had to offer, and always would. This is mainly, I think, what Lasseter gave to WDAS, and it was exactly what they needed, coming from somebody they themselves believed in, so they very eagerly went and did what they knew best. Lasseter didn't tell them to be Pixar, he told them to be Disney again, and that's exactly what they did.

By the way, by extension the same principle applies more specifically to Disney princess musicals, too. Lasseter might have founded Pixar and might have made rather different movies from these, but personally he's a big fan of this type of movie, so if WDAS wasn't going to make them anymore (this was before Disney acquired Pixar), then he was seriously considering having Pixar do it; to take an example, an adaptation of H. C. Andersen's The Snow Queen was one potential project that he was interested in. Later on he really wanted WDAS to take another crack at the latter, and brought Chris Buck back to develop and pitch a treatment, but it was shelved by then-studio-chief Rich Ross before Lasseter had even had a chance to consider it. Then when Tangled broke out, the project was almost immediately reinstated and eventually became Frozen. Perhaps as a result, at least in part, Iger would later give Lasseter the power to green-light WDAS, Pixar, and DisneyToon movies, and Lasseter would report directly to Iger instead of the studio chief (currently Alan Horn).

 

there has been blips but that hasn't stopped the studio and they are making advances with technology with shorts like Paperman and Feast, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a feature film that has a similar style to those two shorts

Well, the Hyperion rendering engine is perhaps WDAS' biggest advance, and that's why they're going to share it with Pixar (or so I've read)--the studios are normally kept separate in this regard, but WDAS has used some of Pixar's commercially available software, and now they're going to share this technological advantage. I'm not sure what Pixar will do with it, but they'll be able to use it. WDAS just used it to render the entirety of Big Hero 6, so it should be up to any task (and some that other rendering engines are not up to, which is the point).

As for style, both studios are trying to find alternatives to the photorealistic or semi-photorealistic styles. WDAS' Meander software is what was used in Paperman, and while it's certainly interesting I keep hearing about how it doesn't scale well for general feature animation work, so it is uncertain whether it will be used in the foreseeable future. If they want a new hand-drawn animated feature, then maybe they should actually make a real one because this would probably be cheaper and easier.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Melvin Frohike

[BK007]

All the studios should calm down on churning out 2 movies a year. The market is not going to sustain it.

 

Dreamworks experienced it already.

 

Though, technically, there hasn't really been much of a dip, if at all, in animation quality despite increased output.

 

But it would be sad if Pixar and Disney had to compromise on quality because they had to make two movies a year. Do they even hire enough people for it or are people being overworked? And there's still the wage ceiling fiasco in the background.

[AniNate]

All the studios should calm down on churning out 2 movies a year. The market is not going to sustain it.

 

Dreamworks experienced it already.

 

Though, technically, there hasn't really been much of a dip, if at all, in animation quality despite increased output.

 

But it would be sad if Pixar and Disney had to compromise on quality because they had to make two movies a year. Do they even hire enough people for it or are people being overworked? And there's still the wage ceiling fiasco in the background.

 

You seriously think Dreamworks would be doing any better if they released less films? Their struggles are derived from far deeper issues. They've never been all that interested in doing ambitious or quasi-artsy films like Pixar was, and most of their films have a sameness to them. Plus their directors don't really do the publicity rounds like Pixar and Disney's do, which further reinforces the perception that Dreamworks is just a business trying to turn a profit and that there's no real soul to the products they release.

[Derpity]

You seriously think Dreamworks would be doing any better if they released less films? Their struggles are derived from far deeper issues. They've never been all that interested in doing ambitious or quasi-artsy films like Pixar was, and most of their films have a sameness to them. Plus their directors don't really do the publicity rounds like Pixar and Disney's do, which further reinforces the perception that Dreamworks is just a business trying to turn a profit and that there's no real soul to the products they release.

 

Here's the key difference between Dreamworks and Pixar (and WDAS for that matter)....when Dreamworks makes a movie they have one thought in mind: I hope this is a franchise.  Every single movie they make is able to have a sequel if its successful enough.  The friggin CROODS is getting a sequel.  The only reason they have one offs is because the movie sucked ass.  They're obsessed with franchises, and this isn't just me saying this, Katzenberg says it on analyst conference calls talking about the search for their next big franchise (i.e. the next Shrek).  In his mind if they can find another great franchise, they're all set.  They thought it would be How to Train your Dragon.  

 

Now....compare that to Pixar and WDAS.  Do you think when they were storyboarding Wall-E they were thinking sequel?  Up?  Frozen?  THAT is the big difference. When they're making a film, quality is the first priority, commercial success is merely a byproduct.  When Dreamworks makes a film, commercial success is front of the mind, and they cross their fingers that whatever dumb idea they just greenlit (racing snails, prehistoric family, etc.) is good.

[Rudolf]

 

and the talking toys act naturally?

Edited December 4, 2014 by Rudolf

[Sir Tiki]

DreamWorks Animation's nightmare without Shrek

 

The house of Shrek is a shambles.

 

After going public to much fanfare 10 years ago, Jeffrey Katzenberg's DreamWorks Animation has become one of the biggest disappointments on Wall Street. And recently, the signs have only gotten worse.

 

In the last few months, Japan's Softbank and toymaker Hasbro each reportedly looked at buying the computer-animation studio and quickly turned away. All but one of 12 Wall Street analysts who cover DreamWorks—who are known for keeping positive views—have abandoned positive ratings on the stock. Adding to the frustration, the company's last film of the year—"Penguins of Madagascar"—fell short of expectations when it opened last weekend.

 

That has translated into pain for investors: Following a number of failed rallies, the stock now trades at $21.75—about 22 percent lower than an IPO price of $28 in 2004. Softbank didn't respond to requests for comment on this article while DreamWorks and Hasbro declined to comment.

 

How did DreamWorks lose its mojo? The studio got into the computer-animation game early and captivated audiences with a series of four "Shrek" films between 2001 and 2010. All of those films were blockbusters, delivering more than $200 million in domestic box office sales each—sufficient to earn profits even with monster-sized budgets.

 

Unfortunately, even the best film franchises don't last forever and DreamWorks hasn't been able to find a replacement. Not one of the studio's films has topped the domestic box office gross of $239 million attained by "Shrek Forever After" in 2010, according to industry research firm Rentrak.

 

Full article here:

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102236896

 

Shrek 5 for 2019?

[Melvin Frohike]

All the studios should calm down on churning out 2 movies a year. The market is not going to sustain it.

Dreamworks experienced it already.

That may be so, although it's arguable whether the problem is too much product in general or too much bad product as a result of the studios not being able to sustain quality in terms of story.

 

 

Though, technically, there hasn't really been much of a dip, if at all, in animation quality despite increased output.

The movies we're talking about all have pretty big numbers associated with their production budgets, so there are enough talented people around and the studios are still throwing enough of them at these movies to keep their animation looking good. The real question is how many good filmmakers a studio has and how many good ideas they can come up with.

 

But it would be sad if Pixar and Disney had to compromise on quality because they had to make two movies a year. Do they even hire enough people for it or are people being overworked? And there's still the wage ceiling fiasco in the background.

Pixar's problem is that their permanent staff is so large now that they should be making two movies a year based on that, but they can't seem to keep up with the story quality even at a lower rate of production. This is why their budgets are so high--they have to keep people busy, so they just up the budgets and put a huge amount of work into every movie, which makes them look fantastic but also gets the attention of the corporate management. Iger is going to give Pixar a lot of leeway for a lot of reasons, but there is a limit to everything, which is why, as I explained above, Pixar has turned to expected mega-blockbuster sequels to stave off the budget ax. But if anything goes wrong and/or they cannot increase the rate of production (i.e. producing more movies per year), then they may have to face lay-offs (in addition to increasing wages for the employees that they keep).

Now, that may sound weird and unfair since Pixar has been so successful, but the reason is that they've hired too many people over time (didn't have to, but they did), and you don't hire that many (Pixar is like twice the size of WDAS, the last time I checked) unless you plan to make more movies or movies that are unnecessarily expensive (and the corporate management is only going to tolerate so much of the latter). I think their plan was to ramp up production, but they're still having creative issues (until they show otherwise), so they're kind of stuck. I said earlier that they were in a better position than WDAS when they were struggling, and that is true in many ways, but on the other hand all WDAS needed was to have their chains removed and to be given the confidence of their new management (meaning Lasseter in this case), and they quickly began to recover, while with Pixar there may actually be something wrong with them, as they've faltered a bit (albeit not at the box office...yet) even with Lasseter at the helm the whole time. Their old, proven filmmakers will come to the rescue, but moving forward they still need to find new ones who can meet their standards.

I'm totally with you on limiting the number of movies that these studios make. One per year per studio sounds pretty good to me, although the reality of the business--just about any big business--is mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!

 

You seriously think Dreamworks would be doing any better if they released less films? Their struggles are derived from far deeper issues.

Yeah, they only have one or two really good directors.

 

They've never been all that interested in doing ambitious or quasi-artsy films like Pixar was, and most of their films have a sameness to them. Plus their directors don't really do the publicity rounds like Pixar and Disney's do, which further reinforces the perception that Dreamworks is just a business trying to turn a profit and that there's no real soul to the products they release.

Except for Dean DeBlois, who did make the rounds for HTTYD 2, and while that movie didn't meet everyone's ridiculous expectations, it was a successful release. Now he's off to make HTTYD 3, which I expect to be of high quality, but what about the rest of DWA's movies?

 

Here's the key difference between Dreamworks and Pixar (and WDAS for that matter)....when Dreamworks makes a movie they have one thought in mind: I hope this is a franchise.  Every single movie they make is able to have a sequel if its successful enough.  The friggin CROODS is getting a sequel.  The only reason they have one offs is because the movie sucked ass.  They're obsessed with franchises, and this isn't just me saying this, Katzenberg says it on analyst conference calls talking about the search for their next big franchise (i.e. the next Shrek).  In his mind if they can find another great franchise, they're all set.  They thought it would be How to Train your Dragon.  

 

Now....compare that to Pixar and WDAS.  Do you think when they were storyboarding Wall-E they were thinking sequel?  Up?  Frozen?  THAT is the big difference. When they're making a film, quality is the first priority, commercial success is merely a byproduct.  When Dreamworks makes a film, commercial success is front of the mind, and they cross their fingers that whatever dumb idea they just greenlit (racing snails, prehistoric family, etc.) is good.

This. Maybe you're not so derpity after all, Derpity. While I'm sure that Pixar and WDAS do consider the commercial aspects, these are secondary to making the best movies they can make (whether we think they succeed or not). Generally the goals are fairly compatible anyway--if you make good movies with appealing and compelling characters, they'll tend to sell well (in terms of merchandise and whatnot) and you might get your franchise anyway. And even if the movie doesn't perform well, you should get some goodwill out of it, at least. You never can tell for sure whether any particular movie will succeed or fail at the box office, so you might as well make good ones, and this can help a whole bunch with your long-term prospects anyway.

[Melvin Frohike]

 

and the talking toys act naturally?

Yep, sadly Disney's marketing division has fully embraced the "DreamWorks face" motif. They even have Elsa doing it, and that's just wrong.

[BK007]

First of all, I love that we are having a discussion about this. Yeah, it's not actually 41 pages long, but I'm sure it's about 5 pages from when I started the topic. Some of you have been around since BOM and others I just have seen on here. But great input and insight!

 

 

You seriously think Dreamworks would be doing any better if they released less films? Their struggles are derived from far deeper issues. They've never been all that interested in doing ambitious or quasi-artsy films like Pixar was, and most of their films have a sameness to them. Plus their directors don't really do the publicity rounds like Pixar and Disney's do, which further reinforces the perception that Dreamworks is just a business trying to turn a profit and that there's no real soul to the products they release.

 

I didn't say that I thought they would do better, but perhaps if they concentrated on one movie, even if they really wanted to focus on profits, they wouldn't greenlight ideas that should never have been ie Turbo because it's not only not a commercial idea, but it's a really weak one too. I don't know if I want to knock them for the directors making the rounds, and directors in general. Sure there are some hack ones, but Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders who between them have put out the How to Train Your Dragon franchise and the Croods are great directors. Plus, it's not like I need to hear them peddle nonsense. As much as I love Pixar, their motto repeated ad nauseum has now fallen on deaf ears when they don't practice what they preach. You assume that all their directors are for hire and don't care about their movie, which I don't believe is the case. Katzenberg, yes, but everyone? The Big Hero 6 directors backed down on their own idea to make their movie more like every other superhero movie, where's the soul in that?

 

Here's the key difference between Dreamworks and Pixar (and WDAS for that matter)....when Dreamworks makes a movie they have one thought in mind: I hope this is a franchise.  Every single movie they make is able to have a sequel if its successful enough.  The friggin CROODS is getting a sequel.  The only reason they have one offs is because the movie sucked ass.  They're obsessed with franchises, and this isn't just me saying this, Katzenberg says it on analyst conference calls talking about the search for their next big franchise (i.e. the next Shrek).  In his mind if they can find another great franchise, they're all set.  They thought it would be How to Train your Dragon.  

 

Now....compare that to Pixar and WDAS.  Do you think when they were storyboarding Wall-E they were thinking sequel?  Up?  Frozen?  THAT is the big difference. When they're making a film, quality is the first priority, commercial success is merely a byproduct.  When Dreamworks makes a film, commercial success is front of the mind, and they cross their fingers that whatever dumb idea they just greenlit (racing snails, prehistoric family, etc.) is good.

 

Whilst this may be true, especially true on the incessant Katzenberg money-minded drivel that always comes up with every damn movie, I don't necessarily think, once again, that all their directors have the same mindset. DeBlois only wanted to do a HTTYD2 sequel if he could turn it into a trilogy. The fourth one is Katzenberg being an idiot. He once announced 5 Shreks and 6 Kung Fu Pandas or something to that effect. He's a clueless nincompoop but let's not put that on everyone and at the end of the day, he did allow the Croods and HTTYD to be made. Sanders was kicked out of Disney, lest we forget, for trying to be different with Bolt, which was at the time American Dog. Sure, it could have been a trainwreck, but Lasseter-mandated Bolt was basically Toy Story by Disney. Safe to the max. Brenda Chapman's Brave was tossed out for Lasseter-approved Mark Andrews, who comes across as a mindless follower. So, not everyone is the same in one foul swoop and there are bad apples in every tree.

 

I hope Pete Sohn's Good Dinosaur has an identity that isn't just simply Lasseter's checklist.

[BK007]

Pixar's problem is that their permanent staff is so large now that they should be making two movies a year based on that, but they can't seem to keep up with the story quality even at a lower rate of production. This is why their budgets are so high--they have to keep people busy, so they just up the budgets and put a huge amount of work into every movie, which makes them look fantastic but also gets the attention of the corporate management. Iger is going to give Pixar a lot of leeway for a lot of reasons, but there is a limit to everything, which is why, as I explained above, Pixar has turned to expected mega-blockbuster sequels to stave off the budget ax. But if anything goes wrong and/or they cannot increase the rate of production (i.e. producing more movies per year), then they may have to face lay-offs (in addition to increasing wages for the employees that they keep).

Now, that may sound weird and unfair since Pixar has been so successful, but the reason is that they've hired too many people over time (didn't have to, but they did), and you don't hire that many (Pixar is like twice the size of WDAS, the last time I checked) unless you plan to make more movies or movies that are unnecessarily expensive (and the corporate management is only going to tolerate so much of the latter). I think their plan was to ramp up production, but they're still having creative issues (until they show otherwise), so they're kind of stuck. I said earlier that they were in a better position than WDAS when they were struggling, and that is true in many ways, but on the other hand all WDAS needed was to have their chains removed and to be given the confidence of their new management (meaning Lasseter in this case), and they quickly began to recover, while with Pixar there may actually be something wrong with them, as they've faltered a bit (albeit not at the box office...yet) even with Lasseter at the helm the whole time. Their old, proven filmmakers will come to the rescue, but moving forward they still need to find new ones who can meet their standards.

I'm totally with you on limiting the number of movies that these studios make. One per year per studio sounds pretty good to me, although the reality of the business--just about any big business--is mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!

 

 

This. Maybe you're not so derpity after all, Derpity. While I'm sure that Pixar and WDAS do consider the commercial aspects, these are secondary to making the best movies they can make (whether we think they succeed or not). Generally the goals are fairly compatible anyway--if you make good movies with appealing and compelling characters, they'll tend to sell well (in terms of merchandise and whatnot) and you might get your franchise anyway. And even if the movie doesn't perform well, you should get some goodwill out of it, at least. You never can tell for sure whether any particular movie will succeed or fail at the box office, so you might as well make good ones, and this can help a whole bunch with your long-term prospects anyway.

 

Two things; first, the point about Lasseter.

 

I think he is given way too much credit, especially in latter days. I think he has lost his way. What ever happened to the man who brought in Brad Bird to shake things up so that they wouldn't rest on their laurels? Disney is in a better state, because besides the initial stumble out the gate by playing safe, they have really started to hit their groove and have, I would think less of the Pixar structure so talented and driven directors can come to the fore to take up projects, though even having said that, Don Hall reverted to Bolt-like storytelling with Big Hero 6.

 

Pixar's lack of talented directors or new blood is worrying because it's been so long. You'd think that such a creative environment would have them multiplying like rabbits. Something, some ceiling or policies are keeping them at bay, is what I feel. When you know about Catmull and Lasseter's involvement in wage fixing, this adds more fuel to that fire, that they just don't care about their employees all that much. I'm sure the talent is there, it's just that Lasseter, Pixar being his baby, has become slightly corrupted by his position. Perhaps they can prove us wrong, but since Cars 2 came out in 2011, everything out of Pixar has been safe and a retread. The risks are gone. From Brad Lewis to Mark Andrews to Dan Scanlon, all are yes men. It's depressing. Hopefully they prove us wrong next year but the trend is worrying.

 

 

The second point, it's really funny isn't it? The executives don't see that the best way to make more money is to make a bloody good movie, then comes the money and the franchise potential and so on so forth. Planning for one is disastrous and has never worked. Nobody who ever let story slide to focus on franchising has succeeded. It's so simple and they cannot see it. It's stupid.

[Melvin Frohike]

Two things; first, the point about Lasseter.

 

I think he is given way too much credit, especially in latter days. I think he has lost his way.

I can see that. I've argued before that Pixar started going conservative--afraid to fail--even before Disney acquired them, and this might just be the reason they allowed themselves to be acquired at all (aside from a generous offer and favorable terms, which didn't hurt). I've also pointed out in this thread that Lasseter is just one guy--an important and powerful guy at Disney and in this business in general--but still just one guy who is far from infallible himself and can only do so much. This is just in case anybody thinks I'm trying to talk him up like the media often does (they do love their darlings).

 

What ever happened to the man who brought in Brad Bird to shake things up so that they wouldn't rest on their laurels? Disney is in a better state, because besides the initial stumble out the gate by playing safe, they have really started to hit their groove and have, I would think less of the Pixar structure so talented and driven directors can come to the fore to take up projects,

Correct, to my knowledge, although curiously Lasseter had this to say regarding WDAS versus Pixar (quoted in Ed Catmull's book Creativity, Inc.): "There's a lightness and a speed at Disney that I want to see more of at Pixar." That's interesting coming from him, since he runs both studios. Right now at Pixar there are people who consider him part of the problem, and in some ways he evidently considers them part of the problem. As an outsider (who hears things on occasion), it's hard to tell what's really going on inside these places, of course, but like I said earlier these are different studios that are being run differently by the same leadership. One of the differences is that Pixar seem desperate to hold onto what they have (staff, prestige as the world's preeminent animation studio, etc.) while relatively speaking WDAS, despite being the grandaddy of all feature animation studios, feels and operates more like a startup (for a major studio, I mean), and all that implies. Instead of being the innovative upstart they once were, Pixar has become the establishment, and will have to do some soul-searching to overcome their issues.

 

though even having said that, Don Hall reverted to Bolt-like storytelling with Big Hero 6.

Well, some of the filmmakers are going to be stronger than others. As for the quote that some folks here are ragging on in the Big Hero 6 thread about giving people things they expect (from either Hall or Chris Williams), however, I think he just meant that in his view (and just about everybody else's) superhero movies should have superhero action in them--it was just an assurance that the movie wouldn't be all about an inflatable robot bumbling around. If they weren't amibitious enough with the action or other things for you, then OK, but it's not like he came out and said to everybody's face "I am a hack and here is why." I mean, even weird superhero movies generally have action involving "super" things, right?

 

Pixar's lack of talented directors or new blood is worrying because it's been so long. You'd think that such a creative environment would have them multiplying like rabbits. Something, some ceiling or policies are keeping them at bay, is what I feel. When you know about Catmull and Lasseter's involvement in wage fixing, this adds more fuel to that fire, that they just don't care about their employees all that much. I'm sure the talent is there, it's just that Lasseter, Pixar being his baby, has become slightly corrupted by his position.

He and Catmull are apparently so desperate to cling to what they have with Pixar and keep it intact that I'm not even sure they're consciously aware of what they're doing to their employees. Catmull was more directly involved in this while Lasseter was at least passively complicit, but for his part I think that Lasseter is more "precious" about what goes on in Pixar during development and production (his areas), while being looser with WDAS (relatively speaking). That's what's so funny about his quote above--he may well be a big reason Pixar isn't as "light" and "fast" as WDAS right now. This may actually be a vicious cycle in combination with Pixar's new directors struggling--the more supervision they need, the tighter Lasseter's grip becomes, and as a consequence the more poorly they perform (can't fight for their own vision anymore).

 

Perhaps they can prove us wrong, but since Cars 2 came out in 2011, everything out of Pixar has been safe and a retread. The risks are gone. From Brad Lewis to Mark Andrews to Dan Scanlon, all are yes men. It's depressing. Hopefully they prove us wrong next year but the trend is worrying.

It's what I've been saying for a while now, actually, in some of the Pixar threads. "They've gone conservative" is how I've generally put it.

 

 

The second point, it's really funny isn't it? The executives don't see that the best way to make more money is to make a bloody good movie, then comes the money and the franchise potential and so on so forth. Planning for one is disastrous and has never worked. Nobody who ever let story slide to focus on franchising has succeeded. It's so simple and they cannot see it. It's stupid.

For some reason it's easy for many people to convince themselves that one can artificially force things. For example, with no consideration for story some executives think that they can stick a bunch of "appealing" elements together randomly and guarantee themselves a hit for little effort, but this of course is crazy; it might happen to work this time, but in the long run you'll have a poor reputation that will eventually catch up to you. The same could be said for these animation studios themselves--collaboration and firm quality control are great, but you can't artificially create a good story by committee with just the process. At present, although they aren't perfect themselves, of course, I think that WDAS are functioning more like Pixar are intended to function than Pixar, and that one reason is that Lasseter is letting them. He'd better be careful about not becoming the kind of executive that he freed WDAS from when he first came back to Disney.

[The Futurist]

Can t wait for the Pixar WWW thread when both Inside Out and Good Dinausor disapoints both in bo and/or quality ...