A Spirited Dirty Dozen ...

[Andrew C]

I do agree that Disney animation seems to have crazy huge budgets. Seems like they should be able to trim that at least somewhat without compromising the quality of their films. Gotta think there is some unnecessary bloat somewhere. That said....



There is a clear difference IMHO between the quality of Pixar/WDAS and Illumination/Dreamworks -- not only with the animation itself, but the overall movie production (how much man hours was really used to come up with the story for Minions?). To maintain their standards, I'd have to imagine that Disney would need to have a budget somewhat higher than what we see with other animation studios.

I guess I'm wondering if Disney could trim costs to more like $120-150M, which seems plausible without dramatically impacting quality.

Pixar did some trimming back in 2013 or so...they looked for ways to reduce costs while not hurting overall quality. I believe a 10% reduction in production costs was their goal.

 

[brb1006]

Just got finished seeing the latest animated film by Iluminations latest film "The Secret Life Of Pets". I enjoyed it to say the least, while not the greatest film it was pretty enjoyable and fun to watch. My favorite characters would have to be Gidget and Cloe the cat (Am I the only person who thought was a boy until I seen the later trailers?) . While the films by Iluminations Entertainment have been a hit or a miss in the past (I really hated the 2012 CGI adaptation of The Lorax). I will have to say this has become my second favorite film from the company along with the first Despicable Me movie. I remember the movie theater I went to today was surprisingly quiet and empty for once which is rare for me.

My rating
6/10

I'm curious and a bit excited for there next film "Sing" that will be coming near the end of this year. So far I'm starting to like the porcupine character that will be voiced by Scarlet Johansson. Did the characters name ever get revealed yet as of this month? But I'm also worried about it coming out near the Holiday season knowing that movies released from November - March don't do well most of the film.

I haven't been to the movies this often in a long time (3 as of July 2016). I seen Zootopia a day after it debuted in American theaters which was packed and "The Jungle Book" a month later and "The Secret Life Of Pets" has become my third visit to the same theater. I guess 2016 might end up as a good year for animated films unlike ones released from 2011,2012, and especially 2013 where most of the animated movies were "meh" to uninteresting.

 

[Quinnmac000]

I noticed this too. I think it comes down a bit to having legacy and the Pixar culture. Rightfully or not Pixar has been at it a lot longer and given a formula that consistently works. A lot of money is being pumped back into the company, the founders and into the culture of the place for their overly expensive creative process.

They are more expensive, but they earned a right to be in a sense.

Illumination is probably going to quickly close the gap as they establish themselves.

On the other hand the budgets do not account for marketing. Secret Life of Pets easily has had the biggest marketing budget of any of the above. It's ridiculous how long and hard they've been marketing that film. They knew they had a winner though (unlike Sing....).

The tent pole strategy is only viable if you can prove that you can hit big nearly every time. Live action works inconsistently, but 200 million thrown at animation gets you a 10 year development process and hundreds of small to large rewrites, producing a finely polished film almost every time. It also seems to be the one arena that holds a certain brand trust around consumers. Consumers only have brand loyalty with IP on the live action side these days; they no longer show up for the actors, directors or the studio, like once was common.

Secret Life of Pets actually thanks to Synergy marketing is already paid back.

 

[Andrew_Ryan]

The main problem with an all-tentpole release strategy is that these films cost so much to make and market that it becomes that much more difficut to turn a profit (and even when you hit a billion, the margins are no where near as good as smaller scale films). This is something we all know, but I have to ask why does it cost Pixar an extra $100+ million to make these movies? Where does that money go? The six movies shown above are all CGI productions of a similar length, but is the quality (in terms of voice talent or production staff) double that of Illumination? I know Hollywood accounting is notoriously iffy, but the gap between the two is certainly interesting to look at.

One more thing to consider: Illumination outsources their animation to a studio in France. They probably have less overhead than Pixar and I think the wages are lower.

 

[Mike S]

My opinion is a 100% yes. Of course I don't lament 13.5% of the ROA for Mickey and Friend parking garage views, and a petting zoo/BBQ.

Nor am I a fan of backstage. I know it's not the popular opinion around these parts.

I am always sad for mature trees, but they'll be back and there are supposed to be a major net gain.



This begs a serious question, does Disneyland (and Star Wars) actually need 4-8 B/C tickets, in lieu of two E+'s. That's the trade off and the difference between a Fantsyland and a Adventureland. This is much more of an Adventureland with two attractions (Indy and Jungle cruise) eating up a ton of real estate. Or a NoS Square with even bigger E tickets and an even bigger village.

DHS is a totally different beast entirely and lacks attractions, but DL lacks space and was not built to handle crowds. SWL is being built to handle crowds... For better or worse. I realize that drastically goes against the design principles of Disneyland (it wasn't purposely designed to not handle crowds, but it was never designed with the intent that there would be 20 million visitors a year.) Unlike what some people are preaching, Disneyland itself isn't actually going anywhere or seriously changing. It's just getting the same gate within a gate that Universal has embraced with Potter.

You make some good points especially with NOS but it still feels off to me for Disneyland.

 

[Quinnmac000]

One more thing to consider: Illumination outsources their animation to a studio in France. They probably have less overhead than Pixar and I think the wages are lower.

Film production is done by those at Mofac Alfred, located in South Korea. Illumination is based in France for the taxes credits for Animation.

 

[JoeCamel]

We often discuss box office returns on movies, but I thought it would be interersting to compare production budgets between recent Pixar and Illumination Studios titles:

Despicable Me 2: $76 million
Minions: $74 million
The Secret Life of Pets: $75 million

Cars 2: $200 million
Brave: $185 million
Inside Out: $175 million

Box Office Mojo doesn't have figures for The Good Dinosaur, Monsters University or Finding Dory, but it's probably safe to say they are similar to the ones quoted above.

The main problem with an all-tentpole release strategy is that these films cost so much to make and market that it becomes that much more difficut to turn a profit (and even when you hit a billion, the margins are no where near as good as smaller scale films). This is something we all know, but I have to ask why does it cost Pixar an extra $100+ million to make these movies? Where does that money go? The six movies shown above are all CGI productions of a similar length, but is the quality (in terms of voice talent or production staff) double that of Illumination? I know Hollywood accounting is notoriously iffy, but the gap between the two is certainly interesting to look at.

Just keep hitting singles, wins the game every time.

 

[Figments Friend]

Imagine what old school WDI could have done with that space. Part of the charm of Walt's park is the creativity used in making everything fit. Now you get a 14 acre Land with only 2 attractions.

This.

Thank you.

-

 

[the.dreamfinder]

We often discuss box office returns on movies, but I thought it would be interersting to compare production budgets between recent Pixar and Illumination Studios titles:

Despicable Me 2: $76 million
Minions: $74 million
The Secret Life of Pets: $75 million

Cars 2: $200 million
Brave: $185 million
Inside Out: $175 million

Box Office Mojo doesn't have figures for The Good Dinosaur, Monsters University or Finding Dory, but it's probably safe to say they are similar to the ones quoted above.

The main problem with an all-tentpole release strategy is that these films cost so much to make and market that it becomes that much more difficut to turn a profit (and even when you hit a billion, the margins are no where near as good as smaller scale films). This is something we all know, but I have to ask why does it cost Pixar an extra $100+ million to make these movies? Where does that money go? The six movies shown above are all CGI productions of a similar length, but is the quality (in terms of voice talent or production staff) double that of Illumination? I know Hollywood accounting is notoriously iffy, but the gap between the two is certainly interesting to look at.

I noticed this too. I think it comes down a bit to having legacy and the Pixar culture. Rightfully or not Pixar has been at it a lot longer and given a formula that consistently works. A lot of money is being pumped back into the company, the founders and into the culture of the place for their overly expensive creative process.

They are more expensive, but they earned a right to be in a sense.

Illumination is probably going to quickly close the gap as they establish themselves.

On the other hand the budgets do not account for marketing. Secret Life of Pets easily has had the biggest marketing budget of any of the above. It's ridiculous how long and hard they've been marketing that film. They knew they had a winner though (unlike Sing....).

The tent pole strategy is only viable if you can prove that you can hit big nearly every time. Live action works inconsistently, but 200 million thrown at animation gets you a 10 year development process and hundreds of small to large rewrites, producing a finely polished film almost every time. It also seems to be the one arena that holds a certain brand trust around consumers. Consumers only have brand loyalty with IP on the live action side these days; they no longer show up for the actors, directors or the studio, like once was common.

I do agree that Disney animation seems to have crazy huge budgets. Seems like they should be able to trim that at least somewhat without compromising the quality of their films. Gotta think there is some unnecessary bloat somewhere. That said....



There is a clear difference IMHO between the quality of Pixar/WDAS and Illumination/Dreamworks -- not only with the animation itself, but the overall movie production (how much man hours was really used to come up with the story for Minions?). To maintain their standards, I'd have to imagine that Disney would need to have a budget somewhat higher than what we see with other animation studios.

I guess I'm wondering if Disney could trim costs to more like $120-150M, which seems plausible without dramatically impacting quality.

A big reason why the Illumination films have such low budgets is the assistance they receive from the French Government to make those films in France via production subsidies. Without those subsidies, Illumination pictures are much closer to its non subsidized peers (Pixar, WDAS, DWA) in the $100-110 million range. This is almost never mentioned, but it needs to be especially in light of Chris Meledandri taking control of DWA once the merger is completed.

Having said that, I think the production budget levels for the Disney and Pixar films is fine (marketing budgets on the other hand...), but I'd also like to see what they could do with smaller, more personal animated features in the $40-80 million range that don't have the financial pressures that come with being $200 million tentpoles like Dory, Good Dinosaur or Inside Out.

 

[lazyboy97o]

We often discuss box office returns on movies, but I thought it would be interersting to compare production budgets between recent Pixar and Illumination Studios titles:

Despicable Me 2: $76 million
Minions: $74 million
The Secret Life of Pets: $75 million

Cars 2: $200 million
Brave: $185 million
Inside Out: $175 million

Box Office Mojo doesn't have figures for The Good Dinosaur, Monsters University or Finding Dory, but it's probably safe to say they are similar to the ones quoted above.

The main problem with an all-tentpole release strategy is that these films cost so much to make and market that it becomes that much more difficut to turn a profit (and even when you hit a billion, the margins are no where near as good as smaller scale films). This is something we all know, but I have to ask why does it cost Pixar an extra $100+ million to make these movies? Where does that money go? The six movies shown above are all CGI productions of a similar length, but is the quality (in terms of voice talent or production staff) double that of Illumination? I know Hollywood accounting is notoriously iffy, but the gap between the two is certainly interesting to look at.

I do wonder if any of the development of new tools that Pixar does gets rolled into their associated films.

One more thing to consider: Illumination outsources their animation to a studio in France. They probably have less overhead than Pixar and I think the wages are lower.

Catmull tried to keep wages low.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I do wonder if any of the development of new tools that Pixar does gets rolled into their associated films.

Both studios roll those costs into the budgets for shorts and features

Catmull tried to keep wages low.

Yet non-union Pixar features typically cost $40-50 million more than WDAS', a union shop.

 

[BrianLo]

You make some good points especially with NOS but it still feels off to me for Disneyland.

It is very off. The question is would Disneyland be better if it only sticks to 60/70-era design principles for all expansion going forward? Principles that are charming and cozy, though certainly not fit for crowd control. Or if it should change to modern day theme park design?

I'm not actually advocating for the latter. Disneyland should never lose the spirit of originals like Fantasyland or NoS. What I am saying is when it comes to expansion, they'd be silly to continue with the same principles that have already been well executed and trodden.

Some interpret that as a attack on what's already there, I see it as an addition to what's already there (which it pretty much is if you are not a petting zoo mega fan - again not a Walt attraction).

I don't want to see core Disneyland change, but this isn't core Disneyland, it's an addition added to backstage. It is something drastically different - but something that adds to the variety of Disneyland rather than subtracts from the great things it already does. Many disagree. Disneyland does so many things well. Does giving more of the great things that it has so much of improve the park (like spinners, fantasyland dark rides etc)? Or does two modern day E-tickets and an IP immersive land improve it by going a completely different direction?

Greater variety or design consistency? I'm just in the camp that wants to see expansion do something completely different rather than more of the same. All while being very, very, very careful not to stomp on what has come before. I know people are nervous about that, but so far WDI has demonstrated expensive over the top solutions to barely change or actually improve everything in this project's (and the Fantasyland expansion's) path.

 

[doctornick]

Just keep hitting singles, wins the game every time.

I commend Illumination for making enjoyable and very profitable films and I'm sure the bosses at Comcast are happy, but I doubt anyone at Disney feels like they are not "winning the game". In fact, I'm quite certain that any rival studio head wouldn't hesitate to trade performances this year with Disney.

Sure Disney has had some misses but their successes are so huge that the off ones are just small bump in the road write-offs. They aren't sweating Alice or BFG (or Pete's Dragon when it busts), not when they comfortable have the top 3 films of the year with Dory on its way to make it top 4 and still haven't have Moana, Dr. Strange or Rogue One. And that's not even considering the large consumer product tie ins and other related revenues.

That said, I don't disagree that Disney could also offer some "singles" -- lower budget, non franchise films, perhaps even Oscar fodder. They could do that in addition to their ubiquitous tent poles if they wishes. But their current strategy is "working" and doing exactly what they hope. And doesn't have any signs of letting up given the popularity (and studio loyalty to some extent) of Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar and a reinvigorated WDAS. I recognize how there is a tendency in these parts to condemn Disney's film strategy -- and perhaps it will ultimately be problematic -- but it is doing gangbusters currently.

 

[Quinnmac000]

I commend Illumination for making enjoyable and very profitable films and I'm sure the bosses at Comcast are happy, but I doubt anyone at Disney feels like they are not "winning the game". In fact, I'm quite certain that any rival studio head wouldn't hesitate to trade performances this year with Disney.

Sure Disney has had some misses but their successes are so huge that the off ones are just small bump in the road write-offs. They aren't sweating Alice or BFG (or Pete's Dragon when it busts), not when they comfortable have the top 3 films of the year with Dory on its way to make it top 4 and still haven't have Moana, Dr. Strange or Rogue One. And that's not even considering the large consumer product tie ins and other related revenues.

That said, I don't disagree that Disney could also offer some "singles" -- lower budget, non franchise films, perhaps even Oscar fodder. They could do that in addition to their ubiquitous tent poles if they wishes. But their current strategy is "working" and doing exactly what they hope. And doesn't have any signs of letting up given the popularity (and studio loyalty to some extent) of Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar and a reinvigorated WDAS. I recognize how there is a tendency in these parts to condemn Disney's film strategy -- and perhaps it will ultimately be problematic -- but it is doing gangbusters currently.

Not until Comcast acquires Gkids...then Disney will def have to step up the game.

 

[Mike S]

It is very off. The question is would Disneyland be better if it only sticks to 60/70-era design principles for all expansion going forward? Principles that are charming and cozy, though certainly not fit for crowd control. Or if it should change to modern day theme park design?

I'm not actually advocating for the latter. Disneyland should never lose the spirit of originals like Fantasyland or NoS. What I am saying is when it comes to expansion, they'd be silly to continue with the same principles that have already been well executed and trodden.

Some interpret that as a attack on what's already there, I see it as an addition to what's already there (which it pretty much is if you are not a petting zoo mega fan - again not a Walt attraction).

I don't want to see core Disneyland change, but this isn't core Disneyland, it's an addition added to backstage. It is something drastically different - but something that adds to the variety of Disneyland rather than subtracts from the great things it already does. Many disagree. Disneyland does so many things well. Does giving more of the great things that it has so much of improve the park (like spinners, fantasyland dark rides etc)? Or does two modern day E-tickets and an IP immersive land improve it by going a completely different direction?

Greater variety or design consistency? I'm just in the camp that wants to see expansion do something completely different rather than more of the same. All while being very, very, very careful not to stomp on what has come before. I know people are nervous about that, but so far WDI has demonstrated expensive over the top solutions to barely change or actually improve everything in this project's (and the Fantasyland expansion's) path.

One could also argue that modern day E Ticket expansions don't really need such a drastic move with a good example being Indiana Jones in 1995. I know they rerouted Jungle Cruise a bit for that but it didn't drastically change the feel of Adventureland though I may not have the best view for that since my first visit was last year way after it happened.

Idk, I guess I'll see what it's like when I eventually visit after SWL opens but for now it rubs me the wrong way in that park. Perfect for DHS though.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It is very off. The question is would Disneyland be better if it only sticks to 60/70-era design principles for all expansion going forward? Principles that are charming and cozy, though certainly not fit for crowd control. Or if it should change to modern day theme park design?

Something different is not inherently contemporary. The crowd controls expanses methods is hardly new and has failed more than it has worked which is why designers keep returning to the small and cozy concept.

 

[Phil12]

Something different is not inherently contemporary. The crowd controls expanses methods is hardly new and has failed more than it has worked which is why designers keep returning to the small and cozy concept.

They use the small and cozy concept out of necessity because Disneyland is so tiny and has little room for expansion.

 

[Cesar R M]

Rivers of America will survive. (And the rumors of Tom Sawyer Island being "cut in half" were greatly exaggerated.)

Technically its not a river now, its a pond or tiny lake.
I honestly would love to see it maintain the full circle trip.

 

[Cesar R M]

That's what I thought. You're using a massive piece of land like that for 2 attractions? I was sort of ambivalent about this whole project at DL, but as I've seen the actual size and scope of what their doing, it just doesn't seem like it fits properly into DL. To have such a huge swath of Disneyland dedicated to one intellectual property just isn't sitting well with me.

Speaking of number of attractions.
You guys think they will have "expansion pads" whiting the land and buildings to add more attractions in the future? or are they going for "only 2 forever" ?

 

[Cesar R M]

We often discuss box office returns on movies, but I thought it would be interersting to compare production budgets between recent Pixar and Illumination Studios titles:

Despicable Me 2: $76 million
Minions: $74 million
The Secret Life of Pets: $75 million

Cars 2: $200 million
Brave: $185 million
Inside Out: $175 million

Box Office Mojo doesn't have figures for The Good Dinosaur, Monsters University or Finding Dory, but it's probably safe to say they are similar to the ones quoted above.

The main problem with an all-tentpole release strategy is that these films cost so much to make and market that it becomes that much more difficut to turn a profit (and even when you hit a billion, the margins are no where near as good as smaller scale films). This is something we all know, but I have to ask why does it cost Pixar an extra $100+ million to make these movies? Where does that money go? The six movies shown above are all CGI productions of a similar length, but is the quality (in terms of voice talent or production staff) double that of Illumination? I know Hollywood accounting is notoriously iffy, but the gap between the two is certainly interesting to look at.

Id say Good Dinosaur and Dory had even higher budgets.
Just like how expensive was Monsters University just for the voices of Goodman and Co.

Good Dinosaur = seemed to go for hyper-realistic backgrounds.
Finding Dory = Super complex animation/rigging (that darn octopus).

Still, Dreamworks have pushed the envelope of rendering engines harder than Disney (like the complex sand/ice simulations in RISE OF THE GUARDIANS )