... speaks*.
He said -- yesterday when we were having lunch -- that he believed that a good, hand-drawn feature could make a lot of money. (More than TP&TF.)
I said, based on evidence to date, that isn't the case. Because, except for The Simpsons Movie, no hand-drawn feature in the last decade has made more than $120 million domestic, and all we have to go on are the hand-drawn features that have been released, not the ones that would do gangbusters if they could only get themselves made.
(Having now done some research, I have to revise my original comment. I think a case can be made that the right hand-crafted feature could do big business. The question is, who will do it?)
Here are [some of] the domestic and worldwide takes of recent American hand-drawn features:
U.S. Hand-Drawn Features -- 1999-2009
Tarzan (1999): (d) $171 million; (ww) $448.2 million.
Emperor's New Groove (2000): (d) $89.3 million; (ww) $169.3 million.
Atlantis (2001): (d) $84 million; (ww) $186 million.
Lilo and Stitch (2002): (d) $145.7 million; (ww) $273.1 million.
Treasure Planet (2002): (d) $38 million; (ww) $109.6 million.
Brother Bear (2003): (d) $85.3 million; (ww) $250.4 million.
Home on the Range (2004): (d) $50 million; (ww) $104 million.
The Simpsons Movie (2007): (d) $183.1 million; (ww) $527 million.
The Princess and the Frog (2009): (d) $64 million.
So, having now done some research, I would have to say the Wise Old Movie Producer is probably right, for not only is he the Wise Old Movie Producer, but he has data that helps prove his point: Lilo and Stitch and The Simpsons Movie. (If a hand-drawn feature can reverse the down-trend twice, it can do it three times.)
But come on, somebody! Create a zazzy, new, hand-drawn epic. Prove the theory! There's gotta be one out there somewhere.
* Revised from my original comment here.
Posts
12 comments:
Two Questions:
Does the fact that hand drawn features haven't been doing as well on average as CG features justify their not being done at all?
Also, if the Simpsons did so well, why are the sitting on the sequel?
CG vs Hand-drawn, Animation vs Live Action. Independent vs Big Budget. The key to a successful theatrical run (as always) is an entertaining and compelling story.
A decent marketing campaign is important, or you might have an "Iron Giant" situation. Yet, sometimes a film can have a great run almost entirely on word-of-mouth, like Napoleon Dynamite.
And of course, audiences will turn out in part to see some new technological advance. But glitz won't keep them in their seats.
A known property can help (the Simpsons), but isn't sure fire (Astro-Boy).
Look at that list up there again (and my name is in the credits of one of the lesser performers), and compare the earnings to their entertainment value. I'm sorry to say that with rare exception, films earn what they deserve. Throw in the exorbitant budgets of hand-drawn animation of the last decade, and that puts a lot of pressure on a film to earn over $150mil or be considered a flop.
Wow, Steve, you left out many films from your list of U.S. Hand-Drawn Features -- 1999-2009 . Here are just a few you missed:
(all of these released in theaters)
SOUTH PARK: BIGGER, LONGER & UNCUT (6/30/99) (*technically South Park is a CG animated film , but intentionally crafted to look "hand-made". So does it count ? )
THE IRON GIANT (8/6/99)
FANTASIA 2000 (12/31/99)
THE TIGGER MOVIE (2/11/00
THE ROAD TO EL DORADO (3/31/00)
RUGRATS IN PARIS: THE MOVIE (11/17/00)
RETURN TO NEVERLAND (2/15/02)
SPIRIT: STALLION OF THE CIMMARON (5/24/02)
EIGHT CRAZY NIGHTS (11/27/02)
THE WILD THORNBERRYS (12/20/02)
THE JUNGLE BOOK 2 (2/14/03)
PIGLET'S BIG MOVIE (3/21/03)
RUGRATS GO WILD (6/13/03)
LOONEY TUNES: BACK IN ACTION (11/14/03)
THE SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS MOVIE (11/19/04)
POOH'S HEFFALUMP MOVIE (2/11/05)
CURIOUS GEORGE (2/10/06)
Some of those were bombs , some were moderate box-office successes. None made huge Finding Nemo-like money , but as always the cost of the movie needs to be measured against the box-office receipts when deciding whether a movie was a "success". Obviously if the movie costs $150 million it's a much longer climb before the movie is in the black, than if the movie costs $30 million.
For example: "The Tigger Movie" (2000) cost $30 million, made $96 million (domestic and international combined) and sold (sells) well on DVD .
"RugRats in Paris" (2000) budget = $30 million , box-office = $103,291,131 (domestic and international combined) .
Return to Neverland (2002) , budget = $26 million, box-office = $109,862,682 (domestic and international combined) .
"The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie" (2004) , budget = $30 million, box-office = $140,161,792 (domestic and international combined)
The unfortunate part is that these are based on pre-existing popular tv shows (SpongeBob, Rugrats) or sequels to movies (Return to Neverland , The Tigger Movie) . Funding can be found for modestly-budgeted films based on these pre-existing properties , but it's much more difficult to fund an original idea.
But I think the production model does show that if the budget can be kept down under a certain level (let us say under $40 million) that it is possible to turn a *profit.
(*And as with most animated fare these films have a long shelf-life , continuing to sell steadily on DVD, so money is money, whether it comes from theatrical box-office or from DVD sales. Certainly the big bragging rights belong to the theatrical box-office take, but there is more real cash to be made from DVD sales and merchandise._
Yep, I left out a lot, for which apologies. (It's what happens when you post late at night with a tired brain. Yuo get Disney-centric.)
Curious George, since you list it, grossed $60 million domestically, and Universal was pleasantly surprised (I was told they were expecting $50 million.)
And Disney Toons released a string of hand-drawn theatricals (sequels to earlier theatricals) that were produced overseas.
In the back of my tired brain, I have the idea that good hand-drawn animation will gross $50-$100 million domestically, but a "wowser" could probably make more. From memory, Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron grossed $75 million domestically, $10 million less than Brother Bear the following year.
The Rugrats, South Park and Sponge Bob franchises are (somewhat) similar to The Simpsons Movie: Theatrical versions of popular television shows. Synergy! Which runs out after awhile! (Witness the Rugrats.)
At what point will we see The Family Guy and American Dad as features?
Also, if the Simpsons did so well, why are the sitting on the sequel?
My understanding is Jim Brooks (the head honcho of Gracie Films) is off doing a live action project, hasn't gotten around to it.
Which probably doesn't please Fox a whole lot, but that's the way it goes.
Hmmm... seems a bit inaccurate to list PATF like this:
The Princess and the Frog (2009): (d) $64 million.
without clearly noting that TP & TF is still in active theatrical release and hasn't even opened wide internationally yet . Frog is going to end up with much more than $64 million.
----
"Disney Toons released a string of hand-drawn theatricals (sequels to earlier theatricals) that were produced overseas."
Well, if you're going to included "The Princess and the Frog" on your list of "Made in the U.S.A. 2D movies" then the 2D DisneyToon flicks such as "The Tigger Movie" and "Return the Neverland" (with crews in the U.S., Canada, Australia, Korea) can be on the list too, since Frog was also partially made with non-U.S. crews in Canada and Brazil, along with the U.S. crews in Burbank and Orlando.
And of course the oft-cited "The Simpson's Movie" was made with an international crew (mostly in Korea, some in the U.S. , and a few other places) .
Why hasn't Warner Bros. done a theatrical superhero animated film? They keep pushing out direct-to-DVD films that are apparently selling well. And superheroes are currently among the biggest box office draws. It seems counter-intuitive that nothing is in development on this front.
The thing that 2-D always has going against it is the overwhelming perception by the american public that it's strictly kiddie fare.
The exception seems to be when they're also classified as "chick flicks", which was the case of The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin. Lion King also has a bit of romance to it... and was building on the momentum of the previous films.
I don't know... I could be full of it.
I agree that a hand-drawn has a market perception disadvantage.
The tech aura of CG movies gives adults and teens permission to be interested and engage in positive word-of-mouth.
Until someone comes up with a compelling, must-see 2D movie it's going to stay that way. Disney will have some success with 2D because they have a reputation for it. For everyone else 2D will be financially unattractive, for quirky independents and child-fare only.
(Re: The Simpsons movie sequel) --
"My understanding is Jim Brooks (the head honcho of Gracie Films) is off doing a live action project, hasn't gotten around to it."
---
That seems odd since "The Simpsons" is strictly paint-by-numbers now . What does Brooks need to be involved with ? Better act now while there's still an audience (maybe) for another Simpsons movie. Another few seasons of the TV show the way it is now and no one is going to care anymore.
"The thing that 2-D always has going against it is the overwhelming perception by the american public that it's strictly kiddie fare. "
Yep, and doing Princess and Pooh movies won't do a blessed thing to change that perception.
Is Disney going to "save" 2D ? Not with the present game plan they won't.
That seems odd since "The Simpsons" is strictly paint-by-numbers now . What does Brooks need to be involved with?
The series may run without much Brooks day-to-day involvement, but the movie is a much bigger investment. All the bigwigs were heavily involved.
Post a Comment