Rudolf Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I imagine they'll be reluctant to do a sequel since OS wasnt great, similar situation to Monsters vs Aliens and Megamind which underperformed OS but were hit domestically If DWA knows how important the voice actors are for their success, why don't they invest similar dilligence and money in looking for voice actors in the different OS languages? Ice Ages' German success is mostly due to Otto Waalkes voicing Sid. Sheldon Cooper is well known in Germany but not so much is Jim Parsons. How could he? In DWA's shoes I would have sent Jim Parsons along with his different voice actors (at leat for the major markets) around the world. He could have mentioned Home in talk shows, where people wanted to see the actor behind Sheldon Cooper. If DWA wants a franchise out of it, the efford would have been worth it. In the end Home will not make so much more than Pinguines WW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvin Frohike Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I imagine they'll be reluctant to do a sequel since OS wasnt great, similar situation to Monsters vs Aliens and Megamind which underperformed OS but were hit domestically Right, while one could theoretically argue that sequels generally do so much better than originals OS, which seems to be true, the whole idea of making sequels to movies that lost money or barely broke even is like poison regardless--it would cast a shadow over the studio whether this is justified or not. DOM gross may subjectively be more important in some ways, but when it comes to more objective things like actually spending money on a sequel, it had better involve an objective winner (original movie that made a healthy profit) or else! If DWA knows how important the voice actors are for their success, why don't they invest similar dilligence and money in looking for voice actors in the different OS languages? I think it's because if they have any powers of observation and honesty with themselves at all, then they'd realize that stunt casting involving movie stars or other top celebrities only works some of the time. While it might have worked wonders for Home in NA, each market is a different case (as is each movie), and this strategy will often fail entirely for each on an individual basis, which makes it risky to the extreme to depend upon. They will still keep doing it, at least in NA, in case it would help, but it might not be financially worthwhile to do it in every market. Ice Ages' German success is mostly due to Otto Waalkes voicing Sid. But in this case the franchise did not hold up as well in NA, despite the celebrities--you win some and you lose some. They'll keep doing this in certain markets if they can find the actors they want and they deem the cost worthwhile (i.e. positive risk-benefit analysis), but obviously it's not nearly as simple or assured as Big Name Actors = Big $$$$--they have to be aware from their own experience and that of others that it often doesn't work at all, Home in NA notwithstanding (got bailed out that time--maybe this will encourage them to do it more OS from now on, but in any case I'm not a fan of stunt casting, so I'll leave it at that). In the end Home will not make so much more than Pinguines WW. Probably, but at least DWA comes off looking better in the case of Home. They might also have spent less on marketing WW, so in that case if Home also ends up performing a bit better WW (and it gets a bit higher of a percentage of the gross from the DOM market, where it succeeded), then the movie could potentially be pushed close to breaking even. Heck, I'm no accountant (not creative enough ), but I suppose if DWA had written off some of the movie's production budget as overhead for last year (they wrote off A LOT because it's better to get hurt fewer times), then they could potentially claim a profit (maybe with the SEC breathing down their necks yet again, but as long as the numbers add up in the end I suppose there wouldn't be too much trouble ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) Why is stunt casting so bad? For Shrek casting Eddie Murphy worked wonders (his German voice sounds very similar by the way). Those actors earn a lot of money, but they seam to despise those castings. I think it was Chris Rock, who made fun of how much "undeserved" money he got for just a few lines speaking with a cracy voice (at some ceremony or another). The secret of good animation creation is giving your characters a soul. A main part of that is the voice. But also mimic and gestures are important. If remember correctly for Aladdin they had small little Tom Cruise in mind (but without motion capturing). Edited April 15, 2015 by Rudolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvin Frohike Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) Why is stunt casting so bad? For Shrek casting Eddie Murphy worked wonders (his German voice sounds very similar by the way). First of all, "stunt casting" is usually used as a derogatory term in reference to casting big-name actors and especially famous celebrities who aren't actors (and therefore may have minimal acting ability) just because they're so famous. Eddie Murphy is a skilled vocal performer who has a distinctive style, so I would not dismiss hiring somebody like him as stunt casting (any more than I would deride having a well-cast A-list actor in a live-action movie). Even for people like him there is a risk of being too recognizable, and this should definitely be a consideration, but that's a different issue, and as long as the performance is effective and entertaining, then I think that most of us wouldn't mind. At least when I use the term stunt casting, I'm talking about hiring super-famous people who are not well cast and offer little-to-nothing to a movie besides their fame and their names; even when their performances are competent, if they are nothing special that many no-name actors could have done, and probably better, then this could be considered stunt casting. It's kind of analogous to Hollywood becoming overly dependent on sequels. There is nothing inherently wrong with making sequels as long as they are warranted, and even some of my own favorite movies happen to be sequels. The problem is when a sequel is being made purely for money, such as the case of Frozen 2. Gee, I wonder what's next, Tangled 2? Maybe another "drop of sunlight" will fall from the sky and plop right on Rapunzel's head, making her hair turn blonde again and grow back to 70-foot length--instant sequel potential! KAAA-CHING! If remember correctly for Aladdin they had small little Tom Cruise in mind (but without motion capturing). Inspiration can be drawn from anywhere as long as it fits the character and story, and likewise famous actors who can deliver a distinctive vocal performance can have a place, too. Stunt casting, on the other hand, is solely about marketing. Edited April 15, 2015 by Melvin Frohike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonwo Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 I imagine they'll consider a Netflix series, if a flop like Turbo can get one, then Home probably will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 First of all, "stunt casting" is usually used as a derogatory term in reference to casting big-name actors and especially famous celebrities who aren't actors (and therefore may have minimal acting ability) just because they're so famous. I see. For instance. In th 70s in Germany they casted a famous shot putter as Siegfried in a Niebelungen Saga movie (you probably know this story). He was not even an actor just a big guy. He gave quite a decent performance (but without starting a movie career). In my opinion one of the best versions of this story. Two famous sportsmen of Austrian decend (Johnny Weismüller and Arnold Schwarzenegger) started their careers as stunt casts. If their celebrity status helps a movie being made, why not? Would you say, that Home's cast was unecessary for the movie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingjay Raphael Posted April 19, 2015 Author Share Posted April 19, 2015 "Home transported its overseas total to $129.18 million after grossing $10.48 million in 64 markets. Home has now grossed $271.79 million globally. The animated film from 20th Century Fox opened at #3 in France with $1.6 million, and became the highest grossing animated title in 2015 in the UK, beating Big Hero 6 with $1.03 million/$30.33 million cume. The family friendly pic comes to Chinese screens next weekend, Venezuela on May 15 and South Korean on May 21." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 ^ Will it be big in those 3 new markets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 The France BO is almost as bad as the German BO of Home. If China does not contribute lots of money, Penguines $373.5m WW won't get beaten by much by Home. DreamWorks fate won't be saved by it. Funny US stockanalyst haved not realized this. For them Home is still the "homerun", they want to see in it, because Home did better than expected at home. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efialtes76 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 DreamWorks Animation’s Home earned $17m from 34 markets to elevate the tally to $170.1m, adding $1.5m in France for $5.3m after three weekends. The UK has delivered $32.5m after seven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingjay Raphael Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 "Home cozied up to $6.0 million from 35 markets this weekend lifting the international cume to $180.22 million and the global tally to $342.33 million. The DreamWorks Animation pic is tracking 13% ahead of Cinderella in the UK/Ireland and picked up $632K this weekend for a $33.92 million cume. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A District 3 Engineer Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Home opens next week in Venezuela. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingjay Raphael Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share Posted May 17, 2015 "Home made another $4.5 million overseas this weekend, bringing its total outside of North America up to $185.5 million. A $1.5 million debut from 91 screens in Venezuela was the weekend't top highlight as it looks forward to a May 21 release in its final market, South Korea. Home has grossed $348.5 million worldwide." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 still needs some $$$ for Penguines WW How can a film studio like Dreamworks ignore International Markets like this? BTW: what is the most succesful movie with a black female main character (if AVATAR does not count)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 still needs some $$$ for Penguines WW How can a film studio like Dreamworks ignore International Markets like this? BTW: what is the most succesful movie with a black female main character (if AVATAR does not count)? The Bodyguard? It did 411 million WW. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSabrinax Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) The problem is when a sequel is being made purely for money, such as the case of Frozen 2. Gee, I wonder what's next, Tangled 2? No, Frozen 3, and then later Frozen 4, and Frozen 5, and Frozen 6, and... Frozen 7. And then later, a Frozen spin-off, and later a sequel for it. Edited May 20, 2015 by xSabrinax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mockingjay Raphael Posted May 24, 2015 Author Share Posted May 24, 2015 BoxOffice @BoxOffice HOME: $192.63M Overseas Total / $360.63M Global Total #Home Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efialtes76 Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) DreamWorks Animation’s Home earned $2.7m from 1,012 screens in 22 markets for $198.4m. Edited May 31, 2015 by efialtes76 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 DreamWorks Animation’s Home earned $2.7m from 1,012 screens in 22 markets for $198.4m. At least $200M is happening. So around $380-390M WW total. Not bad at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple Minion Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 HOME: $202.44M Overseas Total / $374.39M Global Total #Home — BoxOffice (@BoxOffice) June 7, 2015 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...