... The flood of computer-animated movies is reminiscent of the late 1990s, when Disney blockbusters such as "The Lion King" spurred others to jump into the business — only to fail with a string of box-office clunkers, such as "The Iron Giant" and "Titan A.E.," that led to widespread layoffs.
Most of the recent movies, however, have fared well at the box office, some hugely so. Universal scored a massive hit with "Despicable Me 2." Since its release July 3, the Universal sequel, produced for $76 million, has raked in more than $750 million, making it the most profitable movie in the studio's history. ...
Okay, we get it. There's just too many animated features competing against each other, and so grosses are down.
Oh. Except that Despicable Me 2, released in the middle of the glut (after Monsters University but before Turbo) is the "most profitable movie in Universal's history."
Think about that. More profitable than Jaws. Or Jurassic Park. More profitable than The Sting or the long series of monster movies. So how did it make so much money in the middle of the glut?
Because a crowded field doesn't necessarily mean box office failure. Otherwise DM2 would have under-performed. It's really simpler than that. When an audience decides not to go see a movie, you can't stop it.
Unfortunately for DWA, the audience decided not to go look at a movie about a speedy snail. Fortunately for Chris Meledandri, the world's theatre-goers decided they really, really wanted to see Despicable Me 2, which has out-performed Monsters, Inc. 2/Monsters University in most geographic areas, though not by much.
If people want to go see a long-form cartoon, they'll go do it. And if not, not. Gluts be damned. It's the content, not the format.