©®Paramount-Viacom
Paramount Pictures is starting an animation division, firing the opening shot at partner DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. as Hollywood studios place more bets on animated pictures.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Paramount may be preparing for the day their distribution deal with DreamWorks Animation expires.
The studio, a unit of Viacom Inc., said Paramount Animation plans to spend up to $100 million to produce each film, releasing one animated title a year starting in 2014.
The studio said that it could look to Nickelodeon, another Viacom division, for source material. The unit's first title hasn't been selected.
The decision to start an animation studio marks a shift for Paramount, which hasn't been a big producer of animated films. Instead it relied on a distribution deal with DreamWorks Animation, maker of such films as the "Shrek" series. The deal, signed in 2006, is set to expire at the end of next year.
Of all the Hollywood classic-age studios, Paramount and Fox had the least involvement with animation. The last time there was a cartoon animation unit on the Paramount lot was the George Pal Puppetoons in the late 1940s (where my father was the shop steward).
The more major players in Toonville, the better for all of us. Let's wish them luck.
Posts
44 comments:
Could this be like Disney setting up Circle 7 to try and get leverage in their negotiations with Pixar? Or is this for real?
Good call, but it sounds like they are looking at smaller budgets than what the current process is and what films are being produced at.
I'm certain their only motivation is cashing in on the current popularity of animation.
They see money signs...plain and simple....and the moment it drops a few "points"......they pull out.
Heh. Yeah. Smaller budgets, like RANGO. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
its 1995 all over again...we're in a cg bubble, everyone is jumping in.
Yeah right, like 1995. Animators were given some respect and paid well for their skills back then. Think that is happening now?
You're right Walt's Brain. Thanks mostly to JL animators are cannon fodder.
The big difference - which will serve us all better in the long run (hopefully) is that more studios than just Disney is making money with animated films. Actually more studios accept Disney (excluding Pixar) are making money. That should make the bubble a little less likely to pop so soon.
Just to clarify, about what you said "Paramount and Fox had the least involvement with animation. The last time there was a cartoon animation unit on the Paramount lot was the George Pal Puppetoons in the late 1940s..."
Off the lot however, Paramount had a pretty large presence in animation in the 1930s through the late 1960s with their ownership of Max Fleischer's studio (1929-1942) and the later Famous Studios (1942-1956), and still later Paramount Pictures Cartoon Studios (1956-1967) located in New York (and for a few years, in Miami). Popeye, Betty Boop, Superman, Little Lulu, Casper the Friendly Ghost and Gulliver's Travels were produced at Paramount's studio. In the 1970s, 80s, and 90s Paramount produced features with Hanna Barbera, Bill Melendez, Ralph Bakshoi and Hyperion Studios and in the last 20 years backed Nickelodeon, MTV and Comedy Central branded animated features. I'd say Paramount's been pretty committed.
Animation at 20th Century-Fox is another story for another time.
Actually more studios accept Disney (excluding Pixar) are making money
Two things. First, its "except." Second, Disney Animation made money on Tangled
"Smaller budgets, like RANGO."
rango didn't even turn a profit!
Maybe they have a Despicable Me budget in mind instead of Rango.
^
^
^
Yes, what he said. Universal-Illumination is what has turned heads, in case you weren't paying attention to how businessmen think.
Yeah, but how did their next movie “Hop” do?
They made money on Hop it was Russel brand that stunk.
Tangled was a very good film and my favorite Disney film in the years. But those reported costs (in the trades) to produce and deliver are (avatar) mind numbing. Not sure how that can be profitable except in the very long run.
Well, it cost 260 to make (when you include the 7 years of preproduction failure) and more than doubled that in box office revenues (600 mil worldwide). The math on how much a film needs to make to offset its production and marketing costs is typically double, though no one really knows for sure. So it did more than that.
Then it went on to make 100 million in DVD sales, placing it #1 in 2011 (and still there, above Harry Potter).
And it's been reported through Disney's quarterly reports that merchandise for Tangled has been strong, though no numbers are reported.
So, it definitely turned a profit, though not as large as if it had been made for 100-150.
Well, I hope for Disney's sake you're not as off base as you are about what the math is to turn a project on a feature. It's 3x production cost, not 2x.
What I meant to say before part of my sentence accidentally got deleted was:
Well, I hope for Disney's sake you're not as off base on DVD and merchandise sales as you are about what the math is to turn a project on a feature. It's 3x production cost, not 2x.
No, you've made that incorrect claim before. The standard conventional wisdom is 2x. If you have a citation from a reputable source that supports your contention of 3x, please link to it here.
Tangled cost more than Disney admits, and more still to market. It's weak merchandising sales didn't help. It was thanks to dvd sales it eventually turned a very mild profit. Since Disney isn't planning any sequels or further use of the property at the moment, one can only admit Disney considered it a failure.
And most Hollywood Economists (including author of the book "Hollywood Economy") does, indeed state that the studios usually count on 3x GROSS returns (worldwide) to turn a profit on a film. Has mostly to do with foreign financing of the films, as well as major overhead costs and how they relate to taxes.
Well, I hope for Disney's sake you're not as off base on DVD and merchandise sales
Here's the link to 2011's DVD sales:
http://www.the-numbers.com/dvd/charts/annual/2011.php
Here's the link to Disney merchandise reports:
http://www.earningswhispers.com/newsarticle.asp?symbol=DIS&article=158431849&adate=5/10/2011%204:15:02%20PM
And Disney is working on a Tangled short as we speak. Spurred by the success of consumer products, Disney is making a Tangled short that focuses on the wedding between Eugene and Rapunzel. Its no coincidence that "Wedding Rapunzel" dolls and dresses are also being made as we speak. Here's the link to that:
https://www.disneyconsumerproducts.com/Home/display.jsp?contentId=dcp_home_pressroom_pressreleases_dcp_home_pr_us_licensing_show_release_060911&forPrint=false&language=en&preview=false&imageShow=0&pressRoom=US&translationOf=null®ion=0&ccPK=dcp_home_pressroom_press_room_all_US
Owned. Thanks for playing.
Since Tangled merchandise didn't do so well, it's no wonder that Disney has disowned the film as much as it has.
DVD Sales did OK. Merchandise for tangled a minor part of Disney's consumer product revenue--according to the reports. Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 outsold Tangled by a VERY large factor (96%). And the tangled short was cancelled months ago.
^
|
|
Blatant lies are getting old. Steve. Can we please have registered anonymous posting?
The Tangled short was not canceled. How do I know? I'm working on it.
Since it's an established fact that Tangled did well at the box office, but poorly at merchandise sales, can we drop this subject?
Time for Disney to look forwa4rd--no more musicals or princess movies.
but poorly at merchandise sales
Not an established fact. See link #2 on Anon's July 08, 2011 2:18:00 PM post.
by a VERY large factor (96%)
Where are you getting that figure? Your ass? Post a link or youre lying. The other links provided completely contradict that claim
The subject is Paramount Animation but here we are talking about Disney once again. I guess all roads lead to Disney somehow.
Of course it's an established fact. Even Disney admits it--by never mentioning it. But praising Toy Story 3 and Cars 2.
Don't see many tangled toys around these days.
Even if there isn't much out there for it, it still stands as Disney's (by far) best CG effort to date. And the art of book is one of my favorites, amazing amount of Glen Keane drawings.
It praises Tangled in the same report it praises TS3 and Cars. So...wheres your proof? Wheres that 96% figure you claim, liar?
Wheres the proof the Tangled short is canceled, liar?
Lying troll is lying.
Actually the 3X Budget Return Rule has been around for a long time and has been well established for years. All you have to do is Google it and you will find multiple links to that. Try and find one that really suggests 2X is the correct figure and all you find are opinion posts that claim some knowledge - kind of like yours....
You can keep repeating it all you want, but it doesn't make it so. Now if you want to argue that with DVDs and licensing and such it doesn't matter as much that's different, but it doesn't alter the act that a film still needs 3x its cost to be profitable on its own.
What I don't understand, is since Tangled was a mild hit, and the toys didn't generate much revenue--why would Disney even consider making a short of it? Sounds like a money hole to us stockholders.
Wanna play a fun game?
1. Go to disneystore.com and look at the most popular items. Look at the first item.
2. Go to hell
Actual budgets of films are often times half of the reported budget. So 2 times B.O. returns for the reported budget is definitely profitable.
Ohhhh...a game of fantasy math. Well BO is often 100x bigger for Pixar films than anyone ever reports so they turn a profit in the first hour of a film's release
Id like to see a link to this 3x figure. I googled it and found nothing substantial
Here it is:
http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Economist-Hidden-Financial-Reality/dp/1933633840/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1310265674&sr=1-1
3 x to turn profit.
What a shame Tangled didn't sell many toys.
"Wanna play a fun game?
1. Go to disneystore.com and look at the most popular items. Look at the first item.
2. Go to hell "
You don't know much about retail do you?
'Popular items' translates to: "we have too many of these and we'd like to clear them off the shelves for something that will sell better - if this doesn't work next week these 'popular' toys will be in the discount bin"
If the items were "popular" they wouldn't need to tell you that would they?
This was one division which Paramount was behind, Now they are up-to the Challenge.
To the person arguing with the Tangled haters, they are obviously flame-baiting you and running around in circles with their argument tactics. Best to ignore them.
No one yet has explained WHY Tangled, a fine film, didn't sell many toys or books. You'd think Disney would be all over this.
Flame bait. Not taking it.
Why stop now? Since the facts are Tangled failed at the toy store, it's good to finally see you come back to reality.
Post a Comment