And of course the derby goes on overseas, even more robustly than here in the States.
"Avatar" in its ninth round on the foreign circuit defiantly stared down overseas openings of three big major studio films over the weekend, emerging No. 1 with $59 million drawn from 8,453 screens in 71 markets.
... "Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief," director Chris Columbus' adaptation of the popular book series by Rick Riordan. Opening round produced $28 million from 5,800 venues in 40 territories with No. 1 market finishes recorded in South Korea, Brazil, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia and Venezuela.
Finishing fourth was Universal's "The Wolfman," which collected an estimated $21 million from 4,222 situations – for a $4,974 per-screen average – in 37 territories. Domestically on the weekend it premiered No. 3 with a weekend tally of $31.1 million. ...
"The Princes and the Frog" grossed an animated $11.3 million from 3,643 locations in 39 markets, hoisting its overseas cume past the $100 million mark ($109 million) with the prospect of various holiday playtimes ahead in active territories. ...
... "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel" jacked its overseas cume to $207.1 million thanks to a $4.5 million weekend at 3,774 screens in 38 markets. ...
There were various other performers, but the pictures above all have large doses of animation wrapped inside their running times.
This is important because the more animation succeeds, the more animation gets made. And the more it gets made, the more that animators, technical directors, pre-visualization artists and storyboarders have jobs working to make animation happen.
This is a good thing.
Posts
21 comments:
Seems like the Princess and the Frog isn't doing so bad afterall...
It's still got a few weeks in the cinemas around the globe, with schoolvacations coming,
I predict final tally of 250< million worldwide, any thoughts?
I would also predict that The Princess & the Frog is going to make a LOT of money from the DVD/Blu-Ray release.
The truth is that many people (especially families) just don't go to the movie theater anymore unless it's an "event" film like Avatar. It's too expensive to go to the theater and the experience is increasingly unpleasant with dirty surroundings and rude people talking during the movie as the rule now, so most normal people think: "why bother? We'll just get it when it comes out on DVD/BluRay" I think it will rent well, and sell even better because people will want it for their kids to watch over and over like other Disney animated films. Even though the home video market is in flux and is falling way below from where it was in years past I think this film will do well when it's released to disc.
Disney won't have the bragging rights of a spectacular theatrical hit for PATF (though it will probably do about $250 - $275 worldwide before it closes) , but the money is going to keep rolling in on this film for a while. In the long run when it's all totaled up I think it will have made a very satisfactory profit.
It's too expensive to go to the theater and the experience is increasingly unpleasant with dirty surroundings and rude people talking during the movie as the rule now
And this explains Alvin, Up, and every other recent hit...how?
If anything, Frog should've been a major "event." The first hand-drawn feature in a decade, the first Disney fairytale in 20 years.
No, there were other, more important factors to explain why Frog didn't do well. Families are still perfectly willing to go to the theater for the right film, but Frog was not that film.
UP and other Pixar films are still "event" films , like Disney Animation's films were in the 90's.
Disney watered down their brand by flooding the market with too many direct-to-video sequels , so they conditioned their core audience to expect basically the same thing on the direct-to-videos that they would get at the theaters. Hence the films are no longer special, no longer thought of in the "event film" category. That is going to be hard to win back , especially by making pleasant little films like The Princess and the Frog and the forthcoming Winnie the Pooh. There's nothing wrong with The Princess and the Frog , it's a nice , pleasant little film. But not an event film. Pooh will be the same . (and I think Pooh is in an even worse position because the Disney Co. has spent the last 20 years marketing the Pooh characters as only for pre-school children. It's even worse than the PATF situation: if PATF was marketed towards 8 year old girls , but 12 year old boys wouldn't be caught dead going to an "8 year old girls movie", then 8 year old girls won't be caught dead going to a "baby" movie like Pooh).
Nothing explains Alvin. It's a piece of low brow pop culture crap that should have been a direct to video sequel . I wouldn't wish it on any kid or adult.
The explanation for "Alvin" is EXACTLY the same as the explanation for Alvin 1, Fat Albert, Night at the Museum, and every other CGI-heavy franchise movie Fox has used to load the Christmas-Day opening:
December before Christmas has now become the Worst Weeks Of the Year for family films, and other studios see a Christmas Day opening as a license to print marketing money no matter how bad the trailer.
Most studios have learned to keep Nov. 30-Dec. 22 clear and save it for adult/teen tentpoles, since they assume teens going to Avatar and adults going to Oscar dramas can buy their own ticket and park their own car...But family films are almost solely dependent on parents' availability to take the kids in the station wagon, and parents -don't- want to take the kids until school vacation. Disney should be grateful for the money PATF did make in mid-December, and that was on positive audience word of mouth--Which not all movies today get.
It's been pointed out that Alice, Fantasia, and even Hercules and Treasure Planet, all had enough later-generation audiences to "redeem" their images from bad theatrical runs on disk, and kids aren't likely to forget about Tiana yet unless the studio -wants- them to.
Which right now, considering "Tangled", is the big, BIG problem.
I understand wanting animation to succeed so that more animation gets made, putting more animators to work.
But why do we want Pixar and Disney to succeed, if they're just animator slave drivers? Don't we want them to fail miserably so that they stop making animation and everybody can go to studios that treat you better like Dreamworks and Blue Sky?
I assume that's sarcasm about the Disgruntled Vocal Minority on the blog comments--
But even playing audience-member, I can't help looking some of the trailers for BlueSky, Sony, Dreamworks, etc., and saying "Lord, Disney and Lasseter, -deliver- us from 'Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs'..." ;)
It's a bit of sarcasm, but not really as it is an honest question, given the members of this blog.
Why would people in charge of the animator's unions want Pixar, a non-unionized place, or Disney, a place that treats its animators horribly to succeed?
The more studios like that fail and the more studios like Dreamworks succeed, the more other studios will think, "hey, maybe we should treat our animators right as that will make us successful?"
And the day Pixar finally flops and goes out of business, then those animators can finally get jobs in places where they'll be paid well and given right benefits...
That said, I have always detected a strong dislike of Pixar on this blog anyway. The folks who post entries on here like to deride "Pixies" but very rarely (I would say never but I don't want to overgeneralize) defend Pixar from unfair attacks. It's like they just begrudgingly act like they hope for Pixar's success because it's kosher to say "animation success means success for all of us."
But that's just it: WILL Dreamworks succeed, as the Vocal Minority continually Kool-Aids us to believe it will?
Its output is already starting to become a cliche' with audiences, much like 90's Disney had become with its imitators. And the sad fact is, audiences can not easily tell the difference between too many studios--They know Pixar, and they know Disney, of course, but they have a little trouble telling BlueSky apart from Sony, and assume JK's making all of it.
And if they tire of JK from overexposure...they tire of all of it. Again, it's happened before.
Lasseter may be a "slave driver", but he's one who knows what he's doing--Walt was no prize to work for either, as I've heard from the old-timers here.
And with the current CGI and 3-D "gold rush", animators who have some instinctive artistic grasp on the Vision Thing are in disastrously short supply at the moment, and audiences are focusing on those that do. They don't HAVE to remember your film three years from now if they don't want to, and they don't always get a reason to.
That has to be earned with hard work, and no one's accusing JL of not being a hard worker.
pixie
Lasseter may be a "slave driver", but he's one who knows what he's doing--Walt was no prize to work for either, as I've heard from the old-timers here.
I see what you are saying before that - but my whole point is that people on this blog should not be pulling for Pixar's/Disney's success. The best thing for animators under the union's leadership to happen is for Lasseter to fail miserably with his slave-driving and get kicked out of animation for good.
Because in the case of the union, it doesn't matter if the fans think Lasseter knows what he's doing. It only matters that animators get treated fairly and paid well for their efforts - which is all a hard working person would want.
In this case, Lasseter and Pixar's success is bad for animation because animators get screwed.
All I'm saying is the times I find the bloggers here the most insincere is when they put out the usual "Success in all animation is good because it means animators have jobs!" quote at the end of their entries. I say just come out and tell the truth. Success in all animation studios except the slave drivers at Pixar and Disney is good because it means they'll have to take hardworking animators seriously from now on.
no one's accusing JL of not being a hard worker.
Actually, no one who has worked with him has ever accused him of being a hard worker. That's apparently the reason he was fired from Disney those many years ago, and why his classmates at Cal Arts were always surprised by his later success. JL's forte has never been hard work. That's not to say he doesn't have his talent, and moments of brilliance, but he's never been one of those obsessive hard-worker types. He's the Tom Sawyer type - "Hey, guys, doesn't painting this fence look like fun! Hell yeah! I got some extra brushes right here!"
I see what you are saying before that - but my whole point is that people on this blog should not be pulling for Pixar's/Disney's success. The best thing for animators under the union's leadership to happen is for Lasseter to fail miserably with his slave-driving and get kicked out of animation for good.
Maybe it's that I'm in a low-ranking enough position that as far as union rousing, I prefer to pay my dues and shut up--But I'm also aware it's better to be successful and not be laid off, as it's our level that gets it first.
If the power of the union is to put the fear-of-God into DisneyXar by going around whispering that John Lasseter Loves Gravel Gertie, I don't see that as a long-range strategy--And the reason is, it's NOT going to much palpable effect on the real world:
I remember last spring speaking with a soccer-mom neighbor who hadn't seen the "Up" trailer yet, and said they didn't usually see the Dreamworks crap, but she and her kid "loved what Pixar had done with Monsters vs. Aliens". Apparently, the average audience -can- tell studios apart: Pixar makes the ones they Like, and Everyone Else makes the crappy ones they waited to rent on DVD.
If Lasseter apologists are "Pixies" for saying that here, get out of your office, go to your local shopping-mall plex during May or June, and you will be in the middle of friggin' Pixie HOLLOW.
I remember cartoons out of my own past that demonstrated the dangers of sawing off the tree branch one was sitting on...And I don't root for anyone to "fail" if that will give them less money to pay me with.
Deals come from sitting down and TALKING--Lord knows how long that takes, or even how well it works, but a lot fewer get laid off for it.
I really can't wrap my brain around the idea that the Guild should cheer for Disney and Pixar to fail. In fact, it's a notion that I completely reject, as does Steve Hulett.
Pixar may be non-union, but they treat their employees well enough that the stream trying to get in far exceeds the trickle leaving the place. And they've helped create a world-wide appetite for high-quality animation that benefits EVERY studio trying to create good animation.
And while morale at Disney may not be at its highest right now, it's still a premier studio that many of our members are proud to work for. Don't let the anonymous grousing about these studios convince you that they're the equivalent of DIC or some bottom-feeder sweatshop -- they aren't.
I really can't wrap my brain around the idea that the Guild should cheer for Disney and Pixar to fail. In fact, it's a notion that I completely reject, as does Steve Hulett.
Plus, the rhetoric that grumbling fans sit around and WISH that Lasseter will suddenly trip up tomorrow and the public will turn away from him, makes the comments sound (as I've heard it joked) like Cubs Fans in reverse:
Instead of sitting over their beers and wishing their Losingest Team would just get a break and win once--and refusing to be told that'll never happen--we have disgruntled animators sitting over their beers and wishing their Winningest Team would just get a break and lose once...Guys, it'll never happen. New strategy.
Instead of sitting over their beers and wishing their Losingest Team would just get a break and win once--and refusing to be told that'll never happen--we have disgruntled animators sitting over their beers and wishing their Winningest Team would just get a break and lose once
I've observed a different phenomona over the years. Most people want Pixar to continue making great movies and to be successful, but are terrified at the prospect that one day they won't. One day, that bad movie will come from Pixar, and they are steeling themselves for that day. And with almost every new Pixar movie, they are convinced (because of fear) that this will be the bad one. The failure.
And so, to steel themselves for a possible failure, they will lambast the trailer, the character designs, etc., expounding on every detail as to why this one, this time, will be a failure. They persist in this "worst-case scenario" thinking until the movie is a big hit, and then they happily breathe a sigh of relief, and start fretting over the next one.
The Numbers ( as of Feb. 17, 2010) reports the latest box-office for Disney's "The Princess and the Frog" -
Theatrical Performance
Total US Gross $101,951,400
International Gross $109,000,000
Worldwide Gross - $210,951,400
And with almost every new Pixar movie, they are convinced (because of fear) that this will be the bad one. The failure.
But that's just it: Thought we already did have the "failure", when columnists went into hysteria that "Cars" hadn't made as much money as the Orange Fish, as the studio had announced to everyone it would--
Wasn't a bad movie at all, but that the NUMBERS HAD SAID SO had analysts defending with theories why the audience had "hated" it, and started retrofitting their analysis to how "disappointing" the story had been. ("Maybe machines weren't expressive enough!") Critics later went out of their way to snub Pixar's "flop", and the dancing-penguin movie ended up getting the usual Oscar that year just to show 'em.
Point is...that sure didn't last long, and the studio was back to Unstoppable again on the Rat movie.
Have a feeling that's just going to keep happening.
pfff, wether Pixar fails or succeeds does nothing for animator salaries elsewhere. Even huge success, like Blueskys IA3, in terms of box office success, does not mean animator salaries will climb up. Unfortunately, Sony is not having a lot of luck either. "Cloudy" was not exaclty a hit. And "Planet 51" was barely on the map.
Interestingly enough,"Monsters vs Aliens" did better than "IA3" domestically...
Of the top 15 movies last year, almost all of them featured tons of animation, mainly cg.
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2009&p=.htm
God
Actually, it does quite a lot for animator salaries. When there's big success, other studios try to emulate it, and they make more animated films, and they hire more animators, and there's more competition for quality animators. The salaries at Blue Sky have definitely gone up, in order to compete. One problem is that the supply of animators has grown, so that has kept us from seeing the massive salary growth we had in the '90's, but if it weren't for the Pixar/DreamWorks/Blue Sky successes, there'd be many fewer animators working, and salaries would be lower.
Actually, it does quite a lot for animator salaries. When there's big success, other studios try to emulate it, and they make more animated films, and they hire more animators
Sadly, the wage survey in the last few years do not reflect what you're talking about. Salaries have, at best, platoed.
God.
Post a Comment