Dreamworks - stormy weather?

[AnimWatch]

http://www.animwatch.com/ForumGFX/GFX/DW.jpg
Dreamworks is reporting disturbing financial news...
Jul 11, SignOnSanDiego (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050711-1349-dreamworksanimation.html)

- lower than anticipated DVD sales on Shrek 2
- lowering earnings estimates for Q2 2005
- several class action lawsuits filed by shareholders alleging the studio misrepresented potential DVD sales
- "lackluster" opening weekend for Madagascar (?)*
- SEC looking into the trading of DW stock and the release of Q1 2005 results


QUESTIONS:

Why do you think Shrek 2 sold less DVDs than expected? Do you think DVD sales are trending down in general? Some feel the DVD market is flooded, and retailers are bouncing shipments that don't sell as well as expected back to distribitors in record time now, to make space for the rest of their inventory.

Why do you think Madagascar didn't attract a bigger audience opening weekend? Do you feel theater attendance is trending downward?*


*Madagascar reportedly took in $61 million over Memorial Day weekend, which was better than the expected $55 million. Based on the arithmetic that features usually do 36% of their business on opening weekend, Madagascar looks on track to make $169Million domestically and $335 to $340Million worldwide. I don't call that lackluster. SOURCE (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050531-1153-dreamworks-stock.html)

[TeviH]

I can tell you why I personally did not buy Shrek 2, and I know many others who did not for the same reason:

I wanted a special edition version with 1 & 2 and the 3D short film that was in the Universal theme park. That was only available in kid-friendly full frame version! I wanted a widescreen "collector's" edition for us geeky animators!!

Amazon reviews show many annoyed people who got the full frame version by accident and warn other people to not make the same mistake. I'm waiting for that widescreen version...

[Nichod]

I didn't get or see Shrek 2 simply because I rarely see #2 movies as good movies. (with the exception of Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and LOTR) And I didn't think the original Shrek was that interesting or entertaining. I found the whole story could have been told in a 10 minutes short. It didn't have the feature length feel to it, and I was yawning about 20 minutes in.

Madagascar on the other hand. Is DEFINETLY a great movie and I don't see it as lackluster at all. I went to see it twice and both times the theater was full, and this was a mid-day showing. I expect it to end up performing quite well by the end of its run. And when it comes out on DVD I'll be one of the first people to buy it.

Brian

[newrecruit]

Possibly waiting for the box set?

Similar to LOTR, we know there are 3 more Shrek movies on the way and each year we could also expect for them to continue to have a DVD release titled "The Story So Far" which contains all the movies currently released.

One of my biggest problems with the Shrek 2 DVD was the previews. During a time when efforts are high to battle piracy, it's a shame that when we do spend $30 on a movie, we are still forced to watch previews of other movies first with no option to skip other then fast forward. Things like this encourage downloading.

This all being said, I did buy the widescreen version of both Shrek and Shrek 2.

[jemel]

I loved Shrek 1. Loved the fairy tale humor, loved the donkey, loved the dragon. Loved the story.

But, I didn't feel like there was enough depth to Shrek to warrant a sequel or a trilogy. Shrek is not exactly epic. However, I did get Shrek 2 and really liked it, although the Puss in Boots character was the only part that made the purchase worth it, for me. Maybe Shrek 2 didn't have enough new characters that appealed to me? The story was definitely weaker than in Shrek 1.

Too bad about Dreamworks, hope they work things out.

[agentcub]

I've always been dissapointed with the DVDs that Dreamworks Animation puts out. They don't put any cool featurette's or documentries on it. And the ones they do put on it are only like 5 to 7 minutes long. And when they did have longer featurettes, they would spend 5 minutes talking about the animation and then talk to the actors for 20 minutes, like they're the ones that made the film.

But as far as DVD sales in general, I seem to keep buying them. Except the problem that I see happening, is they will release a normal edition and then release a super edition 2 months later. So, I can see how maybe DVD sales may be dropping. Instead of buying it when it comes out, they'll wait till the super edition comes out. At least thats what I do sometimes, because I don't want to have two copies of the same movie.

Also, I think another reason why people aren't buying the DVD's when they first come out, is because instead of buying it for $20 bucks, they'll wait awhile, and 2 - 6 months later, the price will drop to $10 to $15 bucks.

And the reason I didn't see Madagascar, is because it looked like all the other animations out there. And I'm sure it was a good movie, but I just didn't see anything in it that peeked my interest enough to see it in the theater. It's one that I'll wait for to come out on DVD.

I think it's kind of rotten and stupid for the shareholders to sue Dreamworks because DVD sales weren't as good as they had predicted. I mean, there sueing because Dreamworks can't predict the future. How stupid does that sound. It's part of business. You never know exactly how sales are going to turn out. If it were that easy, I think we'd have more millionairs out there. I don't think sueing them is going to help the situation any. It's like, "I know you're have a bad year, that's tough, but it's going to get worse. We're sueing you because you're not doing to good. Also, spread your legs so I can kick you in the balls!"

But then again, maybe Dreamworks Animation shouldn't release their DVD's the same day a Pixar movie opens in theaters.

[TeviH]

No, DW was trying to hide certain information about DVD sales. The information came out too late. Shareholders - who own part of the company, technically - have a right to know all the information right away.

[agentcub]

Sorry, my bad. :oops:

[jeva]

I beleive, everybody watched shrek2 at the cinemas because of shrek1, which was good ... 2 was not. the same happened to me, and I'm not planning to buy the dvd ... beacause I didn't like it. the extras come second.
it's also interesting what an ex dworks insider told me .. he said, that the problam is basically Katzenberg, who wants to controll all, but he definately should not .. his a moneyguy and not a storyteller or a visual type. the first part was more pdi, the second one was more katzenberg ..

my pov ...

[h2oStudios]

Shrek 2 will be shown on a 3 story screen (out-doors) at the Kensico Dam Plaza for free, in Vallhala, NY - July 21, 2005 - maybe this can help boost DVD sales.

h2o

[RebelHill]

IT SUCKED DONKEY NUTS!!

Sorry if that seems a lil harsh, but its true. Look at the opening, here we are, married now, dum-de-dum, oh how convenient, someone's at the door.

It comes off like a really, really bad sitcom. Remember the old adage about novels, the first chapter has to grab the reader otherwise they'll drop the book, well the same goes for movies y'know.

Does it have fun bits, sure, does it have good characters, sure, but there's this overbearing sense that they have somehow expired, they're appearing in this movie having already outlived their usefulness as story assets.

Mark my words, the same thing is gonna happen in Ice Age 2.

But I think from my point of view, what I find to be a real letdown, is the way the studio presents itself and its work, its about a lil thing called ARTISTIC INTEGRITY.

I mean Dreamworks (and they're not the only ones) bang on about their commitment to story, to character, etc, etc, how it all comes first, and what do they do? They produce a movie that's motivated by the success of its predecessor, and not at all by the fact that there's more to tell.

It would appear that its just another studio that gets a hit, and tries to milk it for all its worth, and that's not art, it's paint by numbers.

Proof?

Take the good ol Toy Story 2... errm... story. Disney held the rights, and was adamant to produce a sequel after the success of the first, Pixar, really didn't want to do it, so Disney threatened to make it without them. Pixar buckled under the knowledge that Disney would do a bull in a china shop, straight to video job of it, and even then, way, way into production, good ol J.L. looked at what they had made, declared it as utter crap, and started over. Why? Because the man has INTEGRITY about his work, and what a sequel it proved to be. One of the very, very few.

[TeviH]

Thanks for your rant ;)

Guess that answers my question I posed in another thread... :p

[warreng_online]

I think Shrek 2 sales were low because:
1. Shrek 2 was not as appealing as the all-around humor and animation was in Shrek one.

2. The songs were not catchy at all.

3. If Donkey was eliminated from the movie, would it have been funny at all? His antics seemed a little watered down in Shrek 2 compared to Shrek one.

4. Widescreen, full screen we all was either, other or both. I think if there were special features, songs, a side adventure of donkey, dragon and kids, that would have been fun! A 12-minute short would have been excellent.

These are my opinions. As for Madagascar, I did not care for the movie. Now, I did not say it sucked; I just did not care for it. What movie makers are forgetting are that when it comes to animation, if it is a new type of movie, a 'nobody' who is a good voice actor is better (and cheaper) than a well-known star filling in for a voice.

Could you tell that Jada Pinkette was the hippo? I couldn't and could careless. Honestly, I can't even remember anyone's voice to match the characters, well, except that David Schwimmer (the big nosed guy from the show Friends) was the lion, right?

I'm a big kid at heart, I think some family cartoonists of today need to go and watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Tweety & Sylvester and Tom & Jerry cartoons (especially the ones with the lost baby kangaroo).

We need slapstick, not 'comedy' in general, we need songs that are whimsical, like in the movie Labyrinth "Dance baby Dance". It's a rather lame song, but because it is whimsy and full of fun, that is what makes it appealing (to me at least).

If there is a Shrek 3, I hope it returns to its old, nasty, crude, but gentle humor. Also, Shrek 2 was full of too many things going on; it was not a simple storyline. And though I'm a guy, I think Shrek looks better as a human - Wow! Ok, Princess Fiona does too "Hi-yah!”

I'm glad www.animwatch.com exists; see original works, right here, for free! And you can give feedback on some.

What do you think?