DVD Talk
Dreamworks Shrek Schemes [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Dreamworks Shrek Schemes


Michael Corvin
10-20-04, 04:57 PM
Just saw a trailer for the Shrek 2 DVD last night. Just realized that it comes out the same day as the Incredibles. Trying to steal someone's thunder SKG? I have no doubt in my mind. Market the biggest movie of the year and pit it against Disney/Pixar's latest.

How many DVDs are ever released on Fridays? I can only remember 2. Spiderman and the original Shrek.

And I thought it was bad WB was holding back on the Iron Giant to try and get more sales while the Incredibles was in theaters.

Anyone's thoughts?

Jay G.
10-20-04, 05:18 PM
Fast and the Furious was also released on a Friday.

Considering that Dreamworks pulled this same trick back in 2001, releasing the Shrek DVD on the same Friday that Pixar's Monsters, Inc. came out, it does seem a lot like Pixar envy.

The problem was, the plan largely backfired last time. Monsters, Inc. opened to bigger numbers than Shrek, while consumers were largely confused when the Shrek DVD didn't come out on Tuesday. Most stores had it in the ad for that week, so it was only adverstised and on sale for effectively 2 days, unlike the 5 days for Tuesday releases. So I'm surprised that they're trying to do it again.

PixyJunket
10-20-04, 05:23 PM
How sad. -ohbfrank-

fumanstan
10-20-04, 05:26 PM
Doesn't matter to me. I couldn't care less when its released. Heck, if its out on Friday versus the following Tuesday, great. Going to buy Shrek 2 and watch the Incredibles regardless of their release dates.

Jackskeleton
10-20-04, 07:34 PM
It's an old trick. Happened with Monster Inc also I believe.

PopcornTreeCt
10-20-04, 07:58 PM
I don't see it as a scheme. Buying a DVD and going to see a movie at the theatre are 2 very, very different events.

Get Me Coffee
10-20-04, 08:15 PM
Yup not the first time this has happened.

Michael Corvin
10-20-04, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by PopcornTreeCt
I don't see it as a scheme. Buying a DVD and going to see a movie at the theatre are 2 very, very different events.

Not really. Dreamworks is vying for that almighty dollar. Sure there are a lot of people on this forum that will drop $15 bones on Shrek then head off to the Incredibles and spend another $15+ dollars for two(or food), but most families won't in the same week.

I didn't know about the Monsters, Inc. thing. That is funny. I guess we will see how it goes in a couple of weeks.

calhoun07
10-21-04, 01:00 AM
Do you blame them? For years people cry about how "Di$ney" is so evil and blah blah blah and now a studio comes along that has a real chance at upsetting Disney's stronghold on family animation. Other studios have tried and failed, with Fox closing their doors on animation and WB's animated movies are a joke and a half as far as success goes (though I think Iron Giant was a great classic movie, WB failed to market it properly and it failed in the process). Perhaps if Fox or WB had more tenacity they wouldn't have lost their best talent to other studios. Brad Bird, director of Iron Giant, could have just as easilly made the Incredibles for WB, but WB screwed the pooch with Iron Giant, so why would he stay with them? I am sure there is more to it than that, but the bottom line is that it's going to take a studio who is daring and willing to have the balls to go up against the Mouse. SKG has those balls and are willing to do all they can to get the attention they deserve, attention Fox and WB deserved for their animated movies, but failed to generate because they played soft ball. SKG is playing hardball and all the better for them.

Jay G.
10-21-04, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by calhoun07
Do you blame them? For years people cry about how "Di$ney" is so evil and blah blah blah and now a studio comes along that has a real chance at upsetting Disney's stronghold on family animation. .......the bottom line is that it's going to take a studio who is daring and willing to have the balls to go up against the Mouse.
The bottom line is that nobody has to "take out" Disney in order to be successful in animation. This isn't Highlander, it's not like "there can be only one" when it comes to successful animated films, as Dreamworks, and Blue Sky over at Fox, have shown.

Dreamworks isn't doing this to maximize profits, they're doing this to try and deliberately hurt the profits of another film. It's the difference between two stores involved in price competetion and Walmart deliberately selling everything under cost at a store until all the local stores go bankrupt. Both are forms of competition, but one form is dirty pool. If Disney had done this, releasing say Finding Nemo on DVD the same day Shrek 2 was release to theatres, I'm sure you'd be screaming bloody murder.

jeffkjoe
10-21-04, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Jay G.
If Disney had done this, releasing say Finding Nemo on DVD the same day Shrek 2 was release to theatres, I'm sure you'd be screaming bloody murder.



<b>Disney DID do this.</b>

When I was at Blue Sky making Ice Age,

DISNEY re-released The Little Mermaid, of all things, a 12 year-old movie that already had a theatrical release and a video run, on the EXACT same day as our movie.

Groucho
10-21-04, 12:40 PM
Oh my god. Last time I checked we live in a capitalist society. If you don't like businesses competing, I hear Cuba has a very open immigration policy.

I believe the DVD for the first Shrek was also released on a Friday (against Monsters Inc), and remarkably the Pixar film did just fine.

fumanstan
10-21-04, 12:46 PM
I'm not sure, but has anyone mentioned that they did it with Shrek and Monster's Inc. yet?

resinrats
10-21-04, 12:59 PM
I just don't thing that many people will buy Shrek and then decide not to see Incredibles since they already paid $15 that day. If they really wanted to see Incredibles and the purchase of the DVD makes them rethink things, they probably can't afford to go see Incredibles or buy Shrek to begin with.

I also agree that realeasing it on Friday will hurt Shrek's numbers since the sale on it will last only 2 days. They should release it on Tuesday and just do a marking push on Thursday/Friday.

Michael Corvin
10-21-04, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Groucho
Oh my god. Last time I checked we live in a capitalist society. If you don't like businesses competing, I hear Cuba has a very open immigration policy.

Don't get your panties in a wad. It is just something to discuss. I just find it unusual that these companies are so die hard about taking each other out, over animation, when they can all be successful like Jay said.

Groucho
10-21-04, 02:30 PM
:mad: I DON'T WEAR PANTIES ON WEEKDAYS :mad:

RevLiver
10-21-04, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Groucho
:mad: I DON'T WEAR PANTIES ON WEEKDAYS :mad:

Freeballing?

calhoun07
10-21-04, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Jay G.
The bottom line is that nobody has to "take out" Disney in order to be successful in animation. This isn't Highlander, it's not like "there can be only one" when it comes to successful animated films, as Dreamworks, and Blue Sky over at Fox, have shown.

Dreamworks isn't doing this to maximize profits, they're doing this to try and deliberately hurt the profits of another film.

First off, you quoted my thread and used the words "take out." No where did I suggest Dreamworks was trying to take out Disney. Nobody wants that, I would hope. What I am saying is I applaud their efforts to market and generate attention to their product, even if it means going right up toe to toe and nose to nose with the Mouse Co. If other studios had the balls to do this, perhaps their animation divisions would have been open and their highly talented creators and directors would be making movies now to make both Disney and Dreamworks work up a sweat in worry. But other studios back down and play the nice road and they fail and die at the box office. Criticize them for all you want, but Dreamworks is still getting you talking about their movies, good or bad.

And you think Dreamworks isn't interested in maximizing profits? I thought Groucho had some good one liners! rotfl

Hokeyboy
10-21-04, 05:38 PM
I know where my $$$ will be going.

But this nothing new: Dreamworks did the same before, by releasing the Shrek DVD on the day Monsters Inc opened in theaters.

Troy Stiffler
10-21-04, 05:56 PM
I WILL BE BOYCOTTING SHREK 2. But not because of it's marketing scheme, but because THE ORIGINAL MOVIE BLOWS. Hehehe. A bad movie is a bad movie.

The release date idea is going to help Dreamworks more than it hurts Pixar. Regardless of Shrek 2, The Incredibles is still going to have sold-out shows, all day long, all week long. But I think that having both on the same release date sort of keeps kids movies fresh in the minds of parents.

I'll be seeing The Incredibles in the first week or two.

Jay G.
10-21-04, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by jeffkjoe
DISNEY re-released The Little Mermaid, of all things, a 12 year-old movie that already had a theatrical release and a video run, on the EXACT same day as our movie [Ice Age].
You sure about that? I can't find any VHS release that comes close to Ice Age, and the only DVD release came out on Dec 7, 1999, over a year before your film.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/littlemermaid.html

Jay G.
10-21-04, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by calhoun07
First off, you quoted my thread and used the words "take out." No where did I suggest Dreamworks was trying to take out Disney. Nobody wants that, I would hope.
When I put "take out" in quotes I wasn't directly quoting you, but paraphrasing what I thought the tone of your message was. My apologies if I was off-base. There are, however, people who at least in print claim that they'd like to see Disney fail, and view it as an evil empire. Given Dreamwork's mocking of Disney in the first Shrek, it seems there might even be a few of that mindset working at Dreamworks.
What I am saying is I applaud their efforts to market and generate attention to their product, even if it means going right up toe to toe and nose to nose with the Mouse Co.
If Dreamworks had truely wanted to go toe to toe with Disney, they would've kept Shark Tale on its original release date of Nov 5, same as The Incredibles, instead of bumping it up a month early.
http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=2272
If other studios had the balls to do this, perhaps their animation divisions would have been open and their highly talented creators and directors would be making movies now to make both Disney and Dreamworks work up a sweat in worry.
I don't get this, you think that the reason other studio's animated films failed is because they didn't release them on the excact same day as a Disney release? Movie studios move films release dates away from bigger, higher profile films all the time. The smart thing to do is to get a film a far away from a bigger film so that it isn't lost. Dreamworks knows this, which is why they move Shark Tale. They're just being petty with Shrek 2, since they know the DVD will sell well and are willing to take a drop in initial sales to try and affect the Friday boxoffice.
And you think Dreamworks isn't interested in maximizing profits? I thought Groucho had some good one liners! rotfl
I'm 100% serious. I work in retail, and releasing such a high profile release on a Friday is going to hurt its initial sales. The release date is going to confuse and inconvenience a lot of people. Those who know new releases come out on Tuesdays are going to try and get it then and fail. And those oblivious of release dates are going to wonder why a video is in Sunday's ad if it doesn't come out until Friday.

And you know those low prices on DVDs for their first week of release? Instead of having stores selling this DVD below cost for 5 days as a loss leader, Shrek 2 will only have a low price for 2 days. The same applies for cross promotions and coupons as well.

The first Shrek DVD, while it sold well, did not sell near as well as expected, due to many of the problems above.

jeffkjoe
10-21-04, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Jay G.
You sure about that? I can't find any VHS release that comes close to Ice Age, and the only DVD release came out on Dec 7, 1999, over a year before your film.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/littlemermaid.html


I'm sure. ;)

Disney re-released The Little Mermaid THEATRICALLY around the same date as Ice Age's THEATRICAL date. March of 2001. I'm not talking about the VHS release date.

Was there any good reason for Disney to do this? Nope. It wasn't an anniversary release. There weren't any new "special songs" or "special scenes" added.

But, all the power to them. If that was their marketing strategy, so be it.


...And all this was BEFORE Shrek.

Jay G.
10-21-04, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by jeffkjoe
Disney re-released The Little Mermaid THEATRICALLY around the same date as Ice Age's THEATRICAL date. March of 2001. I'm not talking about the VHS release date.
That release date doesn't show up on IMDB's database:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097757/releaseinfo
Nor does any date in March 2002, which is when Ice Age was actually released in theaters.

...And all this was BEFORE Shrek.
Shrek was released on May 18, 2001 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126029/releaseinfo). It came out on DVD on November 2, 2001 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00003CXXJ/), 4 months before Ice Age was released to theatres on March 12, 2002 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268380/releaseinfo)

Hokeyboy
10-21-04, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by jeffkjoe
I'm sure. ;)

Disney re-released The Little Mermaid THEATRICALLY around the same date as Ice Age's THEATRICAL date. March of 2001. I'm not talking about the VHS release date.

Was there any good reason for Disney to do this? Nope. It wasn't an anniversary release. There weren't any new "special songs" or "special scenes" added.

But, all the power to them. If that was their marketing strategy, so be it.


...And all this was BEFORE Shrek.
Jeff, your dates are off.

Disney re-released The Little Mermaid theatrical on the same day-and-date of Fox's heavily-marketed debut of Anastasia. This was, I believe, in November of 1997, and widely viewed as a crass and obnoxious move on Disney's part to stifle animation breakouts from any and all challengers.

It really didn't help that Anastasia was, for all intents and purposes, a Disney clone under another name, and an average movie to boot. Still, it cleared something like $50-60 million while Mermaid stalled around $25 or so.

calhoun07
10-21-04, 10:16 PM
I don't get this, you think that the reason other studio's animated films failed is because they didn't release them on the excact same day as a Disney release? Movie studios move films release dates away from bigger, higher profile films all the time. The smart thing to do is to get a film a far away from a bigger film so that it isn't lost. Dreamworks knows this, which is why they move Shark Tale. They're just being petty with Shrek 2, since they know the DVD will sell well and are willing to take a drop in initial sales to try and affect the Friday boxoffice.

Not necessarilly. What works for SKG may not work for WB or FOX. I don't expect other studios to do the same thing SKG does or we would have half a dozen animated movies opening the same week and that would just kill the potenial for the movies to grab an audience.

What I am looking at tho are WB's last two major animated releases: Iron Giant and the Powerpuff Girls Movie. Both had a huge potential to reach audiences beyond the kiddie crowd. Iron Giant was treated with such a lackluster marketing drive and didn't generate the box office it deserved. Hell, I am not even confident this movie has yet to find it's potential audience on DVD because WB didn't really promote the DVD the way they could have or should have. Iron Giant rivals some of the best work Pixar has put out, and smashes just about all the recent 2-D animated Disney movies of late in terms of quality. I am not saying they should have released it the same week as a Disney movie but some more creative and stronger promotion for it would have been welcome. SKG chooses to go up against Disney, but WB chose to do what they have always done, and if you do what you have always done you will get what you always get.

Same with PPG. When the PPG first came out, they were advertised in alternative music magazines, and that's how I learned of the show. The show was marketed to a college crowd, and I recall it being on later in the evening on Wed nights when it was first on, around 9 central if I recall right. The show had some Adult Swim potential before Adult Swim was around, but suddenly Cartoon Network and WB decided to market this show to little girls. Maybe that made the series lose it's edge, but I remained a fan, but it seemed as if all of a sudden it wasn't cool to like PPG and suddenly people I knew who weren't into the show thought I was liking kiddie stuff. But when the PPG Movie came out, I read stories of how college students WANTED to see this, but most movie theaters were only running it as a matinee and were not showing it later in the evening when the main target audience could have seen it. And WB could have made a mint off the movie if they marketed it to an older college audience. Same with Iron Gaint.

SKG, I believe, is successful because they don't only pull in the kids but also pull the adults. Other studios just think of animation as kiddie fare and treat it with kid gloves. With SKG, the gloves are off. Yeah, they reach the kids, but I also believe they reach the adults too. Your typical Dreamworks movie is typically going to attract a major audience of adults and well.

And basically I could say the same for Titan AE. Most people I know who got into that movie got into it after it premired on home video, and they were adults. If FOX had knew the potential audience for that movie from the get go and marketed it them, perhaps the animation branch that made the movie would still be open.

They didn't have to go up against Disney, but they should have tried something new.

Jay G.
10-21-04, 11:50 PM
calhoun07

Basically, I agree with most all your points in your most recent post. However, I don't see how any of it is applicable to Dreamworks releasing a DVD on a day that DVDs aren't typically release, that also happens to be the same day as their competitor's newest theatrical release. It's not maximizing the performance of their film, it's deliberately trying to undermine the performance of another.

If you can come up with a reasoned argument on why releasing Shrek 2 DVD on a Friday is a good thing, and not an attempt to directly chip away at The Incredibles opening box-office, I'm all ears. It still looks like Pixar envy to me.

Michael Corvin
10-22-04, 12:01 AM
^^ Exactly. That is all I was getting at. It is Pixar envy. DW may make a ton of money on their CGI flicks, but in 10 years who will still be watching them? Will those films be respected? Stand the test of time? Doubtful, while everyone is re-purchasing all their Pixar favorites on the new format, Shrek, Antz and Shark Tale will be left to the "favorites (aka stuff nobody rents anymore)" isle at Blockbuster. Why?

Does DW have a film being released on the 5th?

I never thought this thread would get much response. Thought it would fade into the depths of the forum, as I was just posting a random thought.

fumanstan
10-22-04, 12:56 AM
I disagree, regardless of Shrek's pop culture references, it is very much a recognizable character and appealing enough to the masses to stand the test of time. The others, not so much though.

calhoun07
10-22-04, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Jay G.
calhoun07

Basically, I agree with most all your points in your most recent post. However, I don't see how any of it is applicable to Dreamworks releasing a DVD on a day that DVDs aren't typically release, that also happens to be the same day as their competitor's newest theatrical release. It's not maximizing the performance of their film, it's deliberately trying to undermine the performance of another. I felt it was applicable because DW is trying a marketing method that is working for them, where as other studios failed to do that.

If you can come up with a reasoned argument on why releasing Shrek 2 DVD on a Friday is a good thing, and not an attempt to directly chip away at The Incredibles opening box-office, I'm all ears. It still looks like Pixar envy to me.

I never said it was a good idea. I did say at least Dreamworks is getting people talking about their movies, good or bad. It's drawing attention to their product and doing the job for them. I am honestly quite indifferent to the whole thing, but am glad they took steps to permeate the animation market so they didn't fade away into obscurity like some others before. Whether I agree with their marketing or not is not an issue with me, I am just glad to be getting great movies.

However, to be honest, I would rather see Dreamworks take some steps out on their own to NOT release things that come out the same time as other Disney titles. I think their movies are good enough to stand on their own, so I don't think they should still have to resort to this kind of marketing anymore. If they really have the goods, they shouldn't have to resort to this type of marketing to bring attention to their product. And, if they are good enough to stand on their own, then maybe the day will come where people are talking about other studios having Dreamworks envy instead.

And DW is not the only studio to have a Friday release. There have been others, howbeit few, but there have been others.

jeffkjoe
10-22-04, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by Jay G.
[b]It still looks like Pixar envy to me.


I love Pixar films too, Jay G. I think they tell wonderful stories.

But Pixar envy? Sure, maybe it is competition with Pixar, but I question your use of the word <b>envy</b>.

When I state the following, it is only to make a point:

Shrek 2 is the number one animated film of all time and Shrek 1 is the first film to win the animated feature film Oscar. Shark Tale is currently number one.

With these facts, why should Dreamworks be <b>envious</b> of Pixar? What, because a handful of internet forum users say so? The masses don't seem to agree. They've opened up a market for both Pixar, Dreamworks, Fox.

They actually have an open mind.

I gotta say that calhoun07 seems like the only guy here with any reasonable arguments - because he realizes that with competition, the industry THRIVES.

Jay G., let me correct myself. Disney didn't release Little Mermaid against Ice Age. They actually competed with TWO movies: Return to Neverland, which was intended as a direct-to-video release initially, and Beauty and the Beast: IMAX, a re-release. Neither film needed to be have a theatrical run, but Disney chose to do it. In March of all places, which is a month almost unheard of with Disney animated features. Check boxofficemojo for the weekend releases for March 2002, and you'll see.

So watch where you point your finger, Disney has done the saaaame thing.

But again, with competiton, the industry thrives.

When Shrek 2 was released, Pixar stock went up. And when Incredibles opens at number one on Nov. 5th, that means that the public is hungry for more of these films.

With the success of Pixar AND also Dreamworks and Blue Sky, the public shrugs its shoulders to brand names. Production studios. They simply want interesting stories.

If Pixar was the ONLY company making these films, the CG industry would get old really fast. With other companies, you get a choice. Variety. Change.

Competition is good.

tanman
10-22-04, 05:37 AM
. . .I think they also did this with Shrek to compete with Monsters Inc.

Jay G.
10-22-04, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by jeffkjoe
Shrek 2 is the number one animated film of all time and Shrek 1 is the first film to win the animated feature film Oscar. Shark Tale is currently number one.

With these facts, why should Dreamworks be <b>envious</b> of Pixar?
They really shouldn't, which makes the decision to release Shrek 2 against the Incredibles more puzzling. Perhaps it's sour grape over Disney making Dreamworks move Shark Tale by claiming the same theatrical release date for The Incredibles. What's clear is that it's not a move intended to help Shrek 2, but to hurt The Incredibles.
I gotta say that calhoun07 seems like the only guy here with any reasonable arguments - because he realizes that with competition, the industry THRIVES.
I love competition, and wish Dreamworks and other studios the best of luck in being as successful or more successful than Disney in the field of animation. However, I'd rather they compete by producing good quality films, not taking petty pot-shots at the competition. As tanman just pointed out, Dreamworks did the same thing with the first Shrek DVD. When the only two films Dreamworks has released on DVD on a Friday also happen to be on the same Friday as the theatrical release of the newest Pixar film, something is fishy.
Jay G., let me correct myself. Disney didn't release Little Mermaid against Ice Age. They actually competed with TWO movies: Return to Neverland, which was intended as a direct-to-video release initially, and Beauty and the Beast: IMAX, a re-release. Neither film needed to be have a theatrical run, but Disney chose to do it. In March of all places, which is a month almost unheard of with Disney animated features. Check boxofficemojo for the weekend releases for March 2002, and you'll see.
Return to Neverland came out February 15, 2002 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280030/releaseinfo). Beauty and the Beast IMAX came out January, 1 2002 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/releaseinfo). So about a month and two months before the release of Ice Age, respectively. Boxofficemojo confirms (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=returntoneverland.htm) these dates (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=releases&id=beautyandthebeast.htm). So your dates are off again.
So watch where you point your finger, Disney has done the saaaame thing.
You're right, Matt pointed out an actual occurrence when Disney did this to the Fox film Anastasia. I never said Disney wasn't guilty of this. This practice is still a low blow, no matter who is doing it.
When Shrek 2 was released, Pixar stock went up. And when Incredibles opens at number one on Nov. 5th, that means that the public is hungry for more of these films.
And when the Shrek 2 DVD is released that Friday, 90% of the buying public will be wondering why it's coming out on a Friday. If you can think of a reason why Dreamworks picked that particular release date other than trying to affect The Incredibles box-office, I'm all ears.

Groucho
10-22-04, 09:01 AM
For the record, both Shrek and Shrek 2 will stand the test of time.

Aladdin has a lot more pop culture references than Shrek, and people are still lining up to buy that.

Michael Corvin
10-22-04, 09:49 AM
Although everyone has some valid points I have to stick with Jay on this one. There is ABSOLUTELY no logical reason to release this dvd on a Friday other than to take a shot at Disney's B.O. receipts.

NitroJMS
10-22-04, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Jay G.
And when the Shrek 2 DVD is released that Friday, 90% of the buying public will be wondering why it's coming out on a Friday. If you can think of a reason why Dreamworks picked that particular release date other than trying to affect The Incredibles box-office, I'm all ears.

He won't be able to, as jeffkjoe works for Dreamworks and emailed me about it when I bashed Shrek 2.

As for whoever stated that the Pixar films will hold up much longer than the PDI/Dreamworks ones, that is absolutely true. At my job, we had Shrek playing non-stop in fall 2001 and it became absolutely grating to listen to after a few days. Monsters, Inc. on the other hand held up fairly well even after seeing it 100+ times over the course of weeks. I'd still laugh everytime Boo did the "Mike Wazowski" or "Kitty!" lines even after many viewings. MI was simply a much warmer and honest story that didn't have to fall back onto now-dated pop culture references to try to be funny. It was simply funny because that's what the characters were, you connected with and understood how Sully and Mike and Boo were feeling. I can't say the same for the crass Shrek.

Michael Corvin
10-23-04, 11:28 AM
^^ well put. There are only two animated film of the past few years that WILL stand the test of time, because they are about story and character, and not pop culture ridden fare for the masses. One is even a DW film.

The Iron Giant
Prince of Egypt

Both of which are 2d films. So far DW 3D work, IMO is about the following... in this order(probably piss of jeff, but everyone is entitled to an opinion):

1.) Stars! We have to have big stars! We will promote the film with their names to fill the seats. Story be damned!
2.) Animation - PDI has done some good work, still behind Pixar and the co. that did Final Fantasy but still good.
3.) Did I mention voice talent?
4.) Something
5.) Something else
6.) pop culture references
7.) something
8.) somehting else
9.) Big names I tell you! $$$
10.) Story and character development

matome
10-23-04, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by jeffkjoe
I love Pixar films too, Jay G. I think they tell wonderful stories.

But Pixar envy? Sure, maybe it is competition with Pixar, but I question your use of the word <b>envy</b>.

When I state the following, it is only to make a point:

Shrek 2 is the number one animated film of all time and Shrek 1 is the first film to win the animated feature film Oscar. Shark Tale is currently number one.

With these facts, why should Dreamworks be <b>envious</b> of Pixar? What, because a handful of internet forum users say so? The masses don't seem to agree. They've opened up a market for both Pixar, Dreamworks, Fox.

They actually have an open mind.

I gotta say that calhoun07 seems like the only guy here with any reasonable arguments - because he realizes that with competition, the industry THRIVES.

Jay G., let me correct myself. Disney didn't release Little Mermaid against Ice Age. They actually competed with TWO movies: Return to Neverland, which was intended as a direct-to-video release initially, and Beauty and the Beast: IMAX, a re-release. Neither film needed to be have a theatrical run, but Disney chose to do it. In March of all places, which is a month almost unheard of with Disney animated features. Check boxofficemojo for the weekend releases for March 2002, and you'll see.

So watch where you point your finger, Disney has done the saaaame thing.

But again, with competiton, the industry thrives.

When Shrek 2 was released, Pixar stock went up. And when Incredibles opens at number one on Nov. 5th, that means that the public is hungry for more of these films.

With the success of Pixar AND also Dreamworks and Blue Sky, the public shrugs its shoulders to brand names. Production studios. They simply want interesting stories.

If Pixar was the ONLY company making these films, the CG industry would get old really fast. With other companies, you get a choice. Variety. Change.

Competition is good.

:up::up:

Shrek2 made $100 mil more than Nemo, so DW nothing to be envious about. It's great that Disney finally has to worry about someone else on the block and can feel pressured to put out better or competitive product.

Jay G.
10-23-04, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by matome
Shrek2 made $100 mil more than Nemo, so DW nothing to be envious about. It's great that Disney finally has to worry about someone else on the block and can feel pressured to put out better or competitive product.
Again, I'm not questioning the point of competition, or the valididty of Dreamwork's existence. Obviously competition is good, anything that drives studios to provide a better product is.

What I am questioning is the specific act of Dreamworks scheduling the DVD release of Shrek to on the exact same date as the theatrical release of the newest Disney/Pixar film. It's a move that is contrary to good marketing strategy and seems staged to try and undermine the box-office of The Incredibles.

Pitting two similar films against each other on the same weekend is not a good idea. DW knows this, which is why they moved Shark Tale away from that date when Disney scheduled The Incredibles. It's why DW moved up the release date of Antz and Deep Impact to before the releases of Bug's Life and Armegeddon, respectively. The lesser film is going to be swallowed.

However, with Shrek 2, DW already has a success on their hands. So they're shoving their weight around and pitting the DVD release against the latest offering from their competitor. DW is willing to take a hit in at least initial DVD sales to try and affect the box office of The Incredibles. I just think the move is childish. It's the competitive mentality of "in order to win, everyone else must lose," which simply isn't true. They should just release the film on a Tuesday like 99% of all other releases, including their own.

jeffkjoe
10-23-04, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Jay G.

However, with Shrek 2, DW already has a success on their hands. So they're shoving their weight around and pitting the DVD release against the latest offering from their competitor. DW is willing to take a hit in at least initial DVD sales to try and affect the box office of The Incredibles. I just think the move is childish.



Just as childish as when Disney decides to release a movie against Fox's Anastasia, right?

Jay G.
10-23-04, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Michael Corvin
^^ well put. There are only two animated film of the past few years that WILL stand the test of time, because they are about story and character, and not pop culture ridden fare for the masses.
For the record, I don't think that Dreamwork's films are that bad. Antz was entertaining enough, and I was pleasantly surprised by Shrek 2. I'm not criticizing their films, I'm criticizing a particular business move that just seems like a low blow.

Also, I'm not going to get into which films will stand the test of time. Such a thing is near impossible to predict, and most of the speculation is based on personal opinions.

I did want to comment on one point regarding timelessness though:
Originally posted by Groucho
For the record, both Shrek and Shrek 2 will stand the test of time.

Aladdin has a lot more pop culture references than Shrek, and people are still lining up to buy that.
One difference between the pop-culture references in Aladdin and Shrek is that the references in Aladdin didn't seem dated as soon as the film was released. Impersonations were of characters like Ed Sullivan and Groucho Marx, who were already timeless. Shrek, by contrast, parodied Lord of the Dance and the Macarena, which have proven to be not so timeless.

Another difference is delivery. William's delivery is so frantic that even if you don't get a particular joke, there's 20 more just seconds away from being told. One of the problems with Shrek was that some jokes stopped the story to a dead halt to be told. Again, I'm thinking of the Robin Hood "Lord of the Dance" scene in which the main characters of the film literally just stand there and watch a skit that kills the narrative drive of the film. Shrek 2 was a remarkable improvement in this arena, as most all the pop-culture references were well intergrated into the story.

So pop-culture references alone are not going to keep a film from being timeless. It depends on what the references are and how they are used.

Jay G.
10-23-04, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by jeffkjoe
Just as childish as when Disney decides to release a movie against Fox's Anastasia, right?
Right. So we're both agreed that Dreamwork's move is childish.

jeffkjoe
10-23-04, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Jay G.
Right. So we're both agreed that Dreamwork's move is childish.



Just as childish as making such a big deal about a <i>release date</i> for goodness sakes!

Jay G.
10-23-04, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by jeffkjoe
Just as childish as making such a big deal about a <i>release date</i> for goodness sakes!
Right. So we're both agreed that Dreamwork's move is childish.

Michael Corvin
10-23-04, 03:46 PM
I thought about Aladdin, and again I'm with Jay, the references are from older people that have already stood the test of time. The only one I question is Arsenio Hall, and even at that people still know the 'dog pound' woof woof, arm gesture.

fumanstan
10-23-04, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Michael Corvin
I thought about Aladdin, and again I'm with Jay, the references are from older people that have already stood the test of time. The only one I question is Arsenio Hall, and even at that people still know the 'dog pound' woof woof, arm gesture.

And i'd say 10 years from now people will still recognize the Macarena, Lord of the Dance, or say... Sir Justin. I'm 22 and had no idea who half the caricatures were when i saw Aladdin in theaters, and even now i wouldn't recognize Ed Sullivan. References will work depending on the generation... its unfair to say what current references will stand the test of time.

ianholm
11-10-04, 11:11 AM
Looks like the Friday release worked out pretty well for Dreamworks.

From Eonline:
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,15299,00.html

"Shrek 2" Wrecks DVD Record

by Charlie Amter
Nov 9, 2004, 7:25 AM PT


The Incredibles had an incredible weekend to be sure, tallying $70.5 million at the box office, but in the end Shrek got more green.

DreamWorks' Shrek 2 DVD, not so coincidentally released on Friday, the same day bitter rivals Disney and Pixar opened their new superhero 'toon theatrically, generated about $185 million over the weekend in combined DVD and VHS sales, the studio announced Monday.


DreamWorks says in its first three days on shelves, Shrek 2 moved a record 12.1 million combined DVD and video units, 11 million of which were DVDs.


The sequel, which already owns the record for highest grossing opening weekend in theatres, with $108 million over its first three days last May, surpasses the original Shrek, which previously held the home video mark by selling 7 million copies and generating $110 million in revenue in its first three days in November 2001 (when it was released in stores the same time Disney-Pixar's Monsters, Inc. hit megaplexes).


Predictably, the folks at DreamWorks are acting like Christmas came early. "This record pace is reflective of the movie’s broad appeal--everyone from kids, parents and general audiences are adding Shrek 2 to their DVD library," crowed Kelley Avery, worldwide head of DreamWorks Home Entertainment.


Avery added that "the Shrek 2 marketing campaign now in full swing and an extensive effort [will continue] through the holidays."


The second Shrek feature, which opened on May 18 in theatres, already owns a place in the history books. Not only did the sequel outgross the original, but it is the biggest moneymaker of 2004 with a domestic take of more than $440 million--a mark that ranks it as the highest grossing animated film of all time and the third-highest grossing film of all time. Numbers like that meant the DVD was going to be a sure stocking stuffer.


"DreamWorks should get to the 30 million mark based on box-office receipts alone," says Scott Hettrick, editor of DVD Exclusives.


Disney-Pixar's Finding Nemo, currently has DVD sales in the 22 million-unit range, the current record. But, just as Shrek 2 topped Nemo at the box office, the ogre is likely to stomp out the fish when it comes to DVD sales.


Hettrick attributes the high first week sales in part to savvy consumers. "I defy you to find anyone who wasn't aware that the release date for Shrek 2," he says.


DreamWorks spared no expense to promote the video, taking out billboard and magazine ads that rivaled most theatrical roll-outs. Of course, the studio needed to make a splash since it was going up against the even more heavily hyped release of The Incredibles. Hettrick says such promotion usually pays off as 50-70 percent of sales come in the first week.


And while the DreamWorks swears (wink wink) that Shrek 2's Friday release date didn't try to undermine some of The Incredibles' glory, Hettrick says the move was the latest in long history of one-upsmanship between the studios since Jeffrey Katzenberg left the Mouse House and cofounded DreamWorks with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen. "It's just part of back and forth between the two," he says.


Shrek 2's boffo sales come at an opportune time for its home studio, since DreamWorks Animation SKG launched its IPO last week and its stock price has been soaring. And both Shrek 2 and DreamWorks' other 'toon hit of 2004, Shark Tale, have been ruled eligible for the Best Animated Feature Oscar--a race that could once again pit The Incredibles against the not so jolly green giant.


But don't expect Shrek 2 to dominate the record books forever; DreamWorks has already given a green light to Shrek 3, due out in 2006, and Shrek 4.

Jepthah
11-11-04, 02:40 PM
I can't even believe that there is a 2-page thread dedicated to this.

(That I am adding to, natch.)

What is the problem here? It's not like the U.S. Justice Department is going to subpeona Dreamworks about this, are they?

-rolleyes-

Joe Molotov
11-11-04, 02:51 PM
But wait!? Shrek 2 DVD and The Incredibles BOTH DID GOOD???? I don't understand, I thought Dreamworks was intentionally releasing Shrek 2 on bad day in order to undermine Disney/Pixar. I thought the Friday release date was going to catch people by suprise. I thought the movie-going audience was going to be confused by two choices and that it would be impossible to buy the Shrek 2 DVD and see The Incredibles. I was assured by the marketing experts on this board that all of this would happen! :eek:


;)

MJKTool
11-11-04, 03:47 PM
Do you people work for these two studios or something?

BigDan
11-11-04, 03:49 PM
Just think how big they would've been had DW moved the DVD release date. :)

fumanstan
11-11-04, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by MJKTool
Do you people work for these two studios or something?

It's a good thing neither of them are a FOX project, or Jack would be all over this ;)


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0