So How To Train Your Dragon 2 is burning...

[GloatingSwine]

The little I saw that speculates either goes full hostile:
"Americans are too dumb to handle a mature animated movie"

The fact that Transformers: Age of Explosions is making infinity money despite being utter toss, and the fourth in a series of movies which are utter toss and all for the same reasons, means that "moviegoing audiences* are dumb" is a reasonable explanation at this point.


* American or otherwise.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Jayngfet
Dreamworks...has already laid off like a dozen people....

Do you have a source for this, and a comparison with total project staff?

I certainly feel for those dozen people (assuming they're not VPs or EDs) but departmental layoffs can happen for other reasons, including a new division head who wants to make a political point when they take over. I've seen that firsthand.

[SiuiS]

I have not seen the movie yet, I loved the first one.
Reading Boxoffice Forums I see that it did VERY bad in the US, despite high praise from reviewers.

I have tried to stay away from spoilers, but to me it simply looks unappealing because the character models freak me out. They have aged everyone 5 years, but in the process almost all characters except Hickup and Astrid hits the Uncanny Valley something extreme (which is weird since they look so cartoony!). Also, is Hickup adopted? Now, all grown up, it is easy to see he does not resemble either of his parents at all?

No, he's not adopted. It makes sense further in. That's also the part of the movie I like.

If you liked the first one, this one is 50/50. Some of it (the world building) is amazing. But the plot actually gets in the way of that. And there is a point, that you'll notice, where if they cut out everything between the first time it happens and the second time it happens, it would be as strong a movie, perhaps better.

[Avilan the Grey]

Do you have a source for this, and a comparison with total project staff?

I certainly feel for those dozen people (assuming they're not VPs or EDs) but departmental layoffs can happen for other reasons, including a new division head who wants to make a political point when they take over. I've seen that firsthand.

For example.

They were also apparently quite brutal about it. Like escorting people out of the building without allowing them to personally clean their workplace or say goodbye to colleagues.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Avilan the Grey
They were also apparently quite brutal about it. Like escorting people out of the building without allowing them to personally clean their workplace or say goodbye to colleagues.

Ouch. Not "a dozen," but several dozen.

I used to work in an organization that did the same sort of thing, so I know that experience inside and out. It makes for some ugly undercurrents, even when you're not the one being escorted out. I'm sorry to see that happening here.

.

[Jayngfet]

Do you have a source for this, and a comparison with total project staff?

I certainly feel for those dozen people (assuming they're not VPs or EDs) but departmental layoffs can happen for other reasons, including a new division head who wants to make a political point when they take over. I've seen that firsthand.

Link.

I was being a bit too generous. Instead of a dozen, that's 40-50 people losing their jobs.

It's possible that there's some other reason, but this was certainly strange.

Ouch. Not "a dozen," but several dozen.

I used to work in an organization that did the same sort of thing, so I know that experience inside and out. It makes for some ugly undercurrents, even when you're not the one being escorted out. I'm sorry to see that happening here.

.

From what I've seen of Dreamworks's behind the scenes culture it's not a terribly wonderful or welcoming place compared to many others. Their entire idea of doing things is based around doing it as quickly as possible and cutting as many corners as they can without anyone noticing(Fun Fact: Their modern cities are built mostly from randomly generated buildings with some guidelines written in. Most of their crowd stuff is done with randomgen characters going through randomly generated animations as well. Say what you like about Frozen's palette swapping and reusing of background characters, but they were much more lovingly crafted).

It stands to reason then that their employees don't get nearly as much respect as the ones at say, Pixar. Pixar generally kicks ass at getting people who want to be there and love the experience by comparison, at least from what I've heard. I mean if it wasn't so abrupt Dreamworks could probably have gotten away with it too. Limited contracts can just not be renewed and it's usually more accepted, and if they were a bit more gradual it wouldn't get so many sideways glances.

Though this is largely just a consequence of Dreamworks screwing up over and over. They've overstuffed their schedule to three features a year and want multiple TV series plus internet and book stuff as well. It's a textbook case of reaching too far too fast and getting burned for it.

[cobaltstarfire]

It really shows too in their cartoons now that you mention that stuff. Dragons (the cartoon) was almost constantly behind schedule because even farming out the rendering and stuff they couldn't get stuff done on time.

It's kind of sad to hear that Dreamworks has that sort of cooperate culture, but that's business for you I guess. :\

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Jayngfet
It's possible that there's some other reason, but this was certainly strange.

Layoffs on this scale certainly point to institutional issues--or internal perception of same--rather than a ham-fisted manager or two. Especially given their overloaded schedule.

Originally Posted by Jayngfet
Say what you like about Frozen's palette swapping and reusing of background characters....

Well, if you insist, I'll say that I thought the palettes were lovely.

Originally Posted by cobaltstarfire
It's kind of sad to hear that Dreamworks has that sort of [corporate] culture, but that's business for you I guess.

This kind of business, anyway.

There's a virulent, vicious kind of corporate personality that seems to enjoy this sort of thing. I've seen it collide with the university-based academic culture, and unfortunately the corporate types are better at underhanded knife-fighting.

[Jayngfet]

It really shows too in their cartoons now that you mention that stuff. Dragons (the cartoon) was almost constantly behind schedule because even farming out the rendering and stuff they couldn't get stuff done on time.

It's kind of sad to hear that Dreamworks has that sort of cooperate culture, but that's business for you I guess. :\

Which corroborates with their first failed series: Father of the Pride, which was a prime time show done at expensive feature quality. They obviously wanted it enough to go all in but didn't really plan it that well.

Not to mention Turbo F.A.S.T., which was made before the movie bombed and they were basically forced to do it at that point.

A recurring issue seems to be greed and pride: They want a hit, but they refuse to plan it out and will just throw as much of everything out as possible to hope something sticks. They just buy up more things and expand more and more despite having no evidence to show that this is going to work, which is why despite being at a loss movie wise they've been buying up hong kong facilities, publishing, and trying to go into internet stuff. They're writing cheques they have no way of cashing and constantly get kicked in the gut for it.

Contrast this to say, Laika. They've never made a mega hit but the bills get paid. Even if they come up short they have another department to do advertising work even for lesser entities like Shaw cable just to make absolutely sure that they can afford to do what they do without cutting corners, and that their upgrades are always worthwhile. They're also expanding at a prodigal rate, but it's expansions that are much less costly and their movies cost about a third or quarter the price to create.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I'm not sure why the movie industry is any more "secretive" than, say, auto manufacturers or industrial agribusiness.

They're not the most secretive, but there's a combination of secrecy and complexity.

The thing is, part of the reason why a bystander can't work out if a film is a success or not is that studios can't easily do so either. For example Scott Pilgrim was greenlit in the hope that it would become a cult DVD success so the box office was irrelevant from the start. A film can be a loss leader for various other things like technology or sequels or tie ins. Establishing a brand can have way more long term value than any gross income.

Auto manufacturers also licence model cars, but the relationship of the auto industry to the toy industry is a lot less important than the one between the film industry and toys, games, lunch boxes, bedclothes, fast food, cereal boxes... No car manufacturer is going to bring an old model back into production because Hotwheels or Matchbox sold more of a toy of it than projected.

Also, cars can be product placement in films while the reverse is very rare (Aston Martin will make lots of money off James Bond making their product cool but they won't bring out a real Batmobile and give Bob Kane's estate a thousand dollars for every one they sell). So the complexity of the automobile industry bleeds into the film industry in an unequal way.

Pacific Rim isn't getting a sequel and comics and cartoons because of any relationship between budget and profit. Its getting them because its a potential brand that made some level of impact and not experimenting with expanding it would be a waste of intellectual property.

Legendary outright said Pacific Rim didn't lose or gain them a significant amount, then proceeded to double down on a sequel, animated series, and more comics.

Comics don't make the licensor a lot of money, or Mike Richardson couldn't have made Dark Horse into the 4th biggest American comics company off tie ins to relatively high profile cult franchises.

It's kind of sad to hear that Dreamworks has that sort of cooperate culture, but that's business for you I guess. :\

Except its not. Pixar love myth making about themselves but they also reaped economic benefits from their corporate structure that Dreamworks did not. Corporate cynicism rarely results in actual efficiency, but there are a lot of sociopaths with important desk jobs who would rather feel smart and think platitudes about 'life being tough' than actually address how they could make their business run better. Optimism can be even worse though, they are dime a dozen scammers who will give 'positive' talks to employees that are a complete waste of time.

[Jayngfet]

Except its not. Pixar love myth making about themselves but they also reaped economic benefits from their corporate structure that Dreamworks did not. Corporate cynicism rarely results in actual efficiency, but there are a lot of sociopaths with important desk jobs who would rather feel smart and think platitudes about 'life being tough' than actually address how they could make their business run better. Optimism can be even worse though, they are dime a dozen scammers who will give 'positive' talks to employees that are a complete waste of time.

Pixar's human resources generally kick ass. A big part of their system involves making sure the exact right people get to Pixar and stay there at the best job for them, even if it means training them from a student level upwards(which they do every year for anyone with a good demo real and a bit of luck). Once you're in good with Pixar you're basically in, since they rarely if ever pull a stunt like this and generally don't try to fire anyone they don't need to.

Seriously just look at some of their workstations. Those aren't cubicles that can just get cleared out in a day, the people inside are free to customize them as they see fit, up to and including knocking holes into the walls or painting them.

Every single thing Pixar does bleeds good culture. From the credits to babies born during production to the fact that they're allowed to do their own thing even within Disney's vast corporate web, it's obvious that Pixar knows what it's doing and how to best do it. Not to mention that instead of doubling down like Dreamworks, they actually pulled back on their movie for a year to make sure it was done properly instead of rushing it out as quickly as possible.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Jayngfet
From the credits to babies born during production....

Well, production babies are pretty much a staple of movie credits these days. But it does sound like Pixar at least makes an effort to provide a decent working environment.



On another note, I'll just say that while Dreamworks may be as harsh as any other corporate environment, and while Dragon 2 may not be performing as well as the first movie in financial terms, it doesn't affect the fact that I really enjoyed the movie in its own right.

Avilan, you still there? I still recommend you go see it.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Every single thing Pixar does bleeds good culture.

Except for Planes...

I'm sorry, but I can't just accept the idea of a company that essentially bought Disney that describes itself like how a company themed ride at Disneyland would look.

I'm sure they're amazing and blah blah blah but I want to wake up from the Matrix 1.0 and have our machine overlords build that crappy late 90s city.

[Jayngfet]

Except for Planes...

...which was a spin-off done by DisneyToon, not Pixar. This is the same reason that the direct to VHS sequels from the 90's weren't as good as the actual features they were based on: They were done by DisneyToon with a rushed schedule. They're the Australian studio with a totally different way of doing things and entirely separate set of standards to work from.

The fact that Transformers: Age of Explosions is making infinity money despite being utter toss, and the fourth in a series of movies which are utter toss and all for the same reasons, means that "moviegoing audiences* are dumb" is a reasonable explanation at this point.


* American or otherwise.

This. Honestly I've become disillusioned with the masses of people filling up theaters at this point. I like to believe that people are good and will do the "right things", since a lot of lowest common denominator stuff sinks and some genuinely good movies are mega-hits, but sometimes it's hard to keep perspective. I mean I actually liked Transformers but looking at just this movie it really does make you feel kind of cynical. I mean heck, even Michael Bay knows it since early in his movie there's a blatant shot at his audience for going to see crappy sequels and remakes and putting people that care out of business.

Dreamworks very clearly did their best to make a movie that was at least comparatively mature and thoughtful and well shot and put together, but it's numbers are middling tier at best. Not that the "high art" crowd has ever done right by the studio anyway. I liked Frozen but it's competition was given no real consideration for the Oscar, with some of the academy either insulting animation or else admitting they didn't bother seeing anything but the winner. The Croods should by all rights have been a clear and strong competitor due to it's amazing visual design and good casting(Say what you will about Nick Cage, but he poured his soul into the role, working with the studio and busting his ass every bit as much as Idina Menzel did), but it's name on the ballots was essentially just a courtesy and not something to be followed up on.

So yeah, while I like to be generally optimistic, some days you really do just have to hate everyone even tangentially involved with the film industry, including and probably especially the customer footing the bills.

[tomandtish]

The snacks is for the theatres, the merchandising is for the studios because they're vertically tied into the licensing in the way that is illegal for cinemas.

Yeah, I meant to take the merchandising part out and forgot to. But for many movies, it holds true that tickets are the measure of box office success. A large part of that is related, because if the movie doesn't do well, merchandising may not either.

There are obviously exceptions:

Movies that are made as part of any existing work appear to use different formulas. GI Joe, Transformers, (and for a less financially successful example) Resident Evil. These movies ARE the spinoff in their own way of the original property. Depending on how the funding is handling behind the scenes, they may not need to do as well.

Disney is such a master of the art that it can just as easily be argued that the movie is made for the merchandising instead of the merchandising for the movie.

Incidentally, for those talking about the understanding the finances, there's two different things to consider.

1) Did the film actually make back expenses? You can use the formula from the earlier post to ball park that, and then add in (if available) merchandising and video distribution.

2) The actual "Hollywood accounting", which is why no film makes a "profit" anymore.

Did you know David Prowse (the actor who played Darth Vader originally) agreed to take a percentage of net profits for Return of the Jedi? As a result, as of 2011 he had not received any royalty payments because the movie has never made a "profit".

The best explanation of how it works is here, (along with an actual income statement for HP and the Order of the Phoenix"). Short version, the studio creates one or more sub-corporations, makes high-dollar high-interest loans to them, and is able to "lose" money on the deal.

[Math_Mage]

Yeah, I meant to take the merchandising part out and forgot to. But for many movies, it holds true that tickets are the measure of box office success. A large part of that is related, because if the movie doesn't do well, merchandising may not either.

Nitpick: Tickets are definitionally the measure of box office success. You're arguing that they're a measure of success in general.

[Avilan the Grey]

Avilan, you still there? I still recommend you go see it.

I'll probably wait until the BR release...
We'll see.

As for Dreamworks... the big problem, if I understand it correctly, is that HTTYD2 was supposed to be the financial anchor that made the next 2-3 rather shaky projects feasible. And then it didn't take off. Which probably means whole creative teams are let off because future more insecure projects now can't be funded. It is not (at least not only) "punishment" for the "failure" of this movie.

[Scowling Dragon]

Say Is the movie worth seeing Jaynget (And other but I trust your Judgment more). From a film standpoint.

The first one just feels so...Complete. I'm no bumpkin, but sometimes I get "The Common man". I just don't get an urge to see it. I'l see it (Cause animation obligations), but I just dunno.

I guess it feels like the trailers suck. They just don't click with me.

Explain to me why the movie is good so that I may get exited.

[SiuiS]

This. Honestly I've become disillusioned with the masses of people filling up theaters at this point. I like to believe that people are good and will do the "right things", since a lot of lowest common denominator stuff sinks and some genuinely good movies are mega-hits, but sometimes it's hard to keep perspective.

I operate from the idea that most people aren't real. Sometimes they'll be elevated to Real status temporarily, and think actual thoughts, but there is a frighteningly accurate perspective where people are just individual circuits that have the standard society thoughts flow through them, unthinking. It's like some perversion of zen; information and thought and activity go into a person and come out and they play their part, but the actual person doesn't matter to what's going on.

[cobaltstarfire]

Say Is the movie worth seeing Jaynget (And other but I trust your Judgment more). From a film standpoint.

The first one just feels so...Complete. I'm no bumpkin, but sometimes I get "The Common man". I just don't get an urge to see it. I'l see it (Cause animation obligations), but I just dunno.

I guess it feels like the trailers suck. They just don't click with me.

Explain to me why the movie is good so that I may get exited.

Unless they have changed their mind, here's what they said in the thread for the movie I made a few weeks ago.

It was a good movie. Well directed with nice camera work and composition and a plot that's an actual sequel instead of just a retread, with all the character development it comes with. It actually feels like the characters are in their 20's instead of mid teens now. The costuming and character design are also pretty damn good at doing what it needs to do to convey certain things. From a broader standpoint this movie is easily worth seeing and is probably the best movie Dreamworks has done in years.

[tomandtish]

Nitpick: Tickets are definitionally the measure of box office success. You're arguing that they're a measure of success in general.

I believe I did say they are the measure of box office success, and that they may (I'll add emphasis) impact success elsewhere. If the movie is a new property, and no one goes to see it, then merchandising may suffer as well. Case in point: How many people own (or even know someone who owns) "Delgo" merchandise? (Only about 100k people saw it in the theater).

I always try to be careful to indicate that I'm looking at whether or not the movie made back production budget at the theater. I am fully aware that there are going to be additional revenue streams that affect the bottom line for a movie as a whole.

In fact, that was the whole point of the Pacific Rim discussion. Since they were already discussing sequel when it came out, we were trying to figure out what the cutoff points are. Now that they have confirmed the sequel, it's obvious that either 1)They are getting a lot more from merchandise and video than we expected, 2) They have some reason for wanting to make a sequel even when the first lost money at the box office or 3) some combination of 1 and 2.

Actually, while writing this, I finally located another article here. In looking at this, the studio gets to keep about 2/3rds (call it 67%) of the gross on video sales, and 90% of the gross on TV broadcast rights.

Throwing that into the mix, Pacific Rim's video sales add an additional $25 million to it's total, which is nice but not great. How to Tame Your Dragon sales added another $82 million to its total and easily made it profitable (not counting advertising).

That's going to be one of the big kickers for animated movies aimed (officially at least) at a younger audience. Video sales are going to be sizable, and you can assume merchandise is large (and remember, this falls into the pre-existing property category anyway).

[Avilan the Grey]

Unless they have changed their mind, here's what they said in the thread for the movie I made a few weeks ago.

I'm just not... feeling it for this movie. Something doesn't click for me, and I absolutely loved the first one.
As for the best movie they have done in years... I can't judge since I haven't seen it, but I so far think that the Panda franchise is by far superior to anything they have ever done. I truly love both movies.

[Jayngfet]

I operate from the idea that most people aren't real. Sometimes they'll be elevated to Real status temporarily, and think actual thoughts, but there is a frighteningly accurate perspective where people are just individual circuits that have the standard society thoughts flow through them, unthinking. It's like some perversion of zen; information and thought and activity go into a person and come out and they play their part, but the actual person doesn't matter to what's going on.

Sorry, but that's not really gonna work for me. Partially because it's rather elitist and partially because it sounds like serial killer logic, to be blunt.

Even if people choose the big and the dumb choices, or the choices that only feed into their stupid views, or choices that result in more problems, they're still people and should be treated as such. Neither of us is some special snowflake elevated above humanity and we shouldn't treat ourselves as such.

[tomandtish]

Seriously just look at some of their workstations. Those aren't cubicles that can just get cleared out in a day, the people inside are free to customize them as they see fit, up to and including knocking holes into the walls or painting them.

You know, it's a sad commentary on the way that many businesses handle layoffs that the first thought that ran through my mind when seeing that was "Ahh, now they can just use a forklift to get the employee out of here".

But yeah, Pixar is supposed to be great to work for. If I remember correctly, part of the agreement in the merger was that Disney stays pretty hands off in the day to day operations.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Avilan the Grey
I'll probably wait until the BR release...

Much, much better experience if you see it in the theater. The landscapes are panoramic and truly beautiful, and you won't get that same impact on disc at home.

As for other reasons to see it:

Originally Posted by Jayngfet
It was a good movie. Well directed with nice camera work and composition and a plot that's an actual sequel instead of just a retread, with all the character development it comes with. It actually feels like the characters are in their 20's instead of mid teens now. The costuming and character design are also pretty damn good at doing what it needs to do to convey certain things. From a broader standpoint this movie is easily worth seeing and is probably the best movie Dreamworks has done in years.

I would agree with just about all of this. I can't think of too many Dreamworks movies that I've seen recently, apart from the two Dragon movies, so that itself makes a good case for this one being a standout by comparison.

Originally Posted by Avilan the Grey
I can't judge since I haven't seen it....

Well, give it a try.

I had very low expectations for the first movie, almost indifference, and I walked out of there delighted and amazed. If you had a similar experience with the first Dragon movie, then at the very least you'll have a fun time with Dragon 2.

Originally Posted by SiuiS
I operate from the idea that most people aren't real.

This attitude won't get you far in life.

[Iruka]

Pixar's human resources generally kick ass. A big part of their system involves making sure the exact right people get to Pixar and stay there at the best job for them, even if it means training them from a student level upwards(which they do every year for anyone with a good demo real and a bit of luck). Once you're in good with Pixar you're basically in, since they rarely if ever pull a stunt like this and generally don't try to fire anyone they don't need to.

Seriously just look at some of their workstations. Those aren't cubicles that can just get cleared out in a day, the people inside are free to customize them as they see fit, up to and including knocking holes into the walls or painting them.

Every single thing Pixar does bleeds good culture. From the credits to babies born during production to the fact that they're allowed to do their own thing even within Disney's vast corporate web, it's obvious that Pixar knows what it's doing and how to best do it. Not to mention that instead of doubling down like Dreamworks, they actually pulled back on their movie for a year to make sure it was done properly instead of rushing it out as quickly as possible.

Doesn't stop them from firing a bunch of people when something goes wrong. They look pretty good, but they are not perfect.

[warty goblin]

Doesn't stop them from firing a bunch of people when something goes wrong. They look pretty good, but they are not perfect.

Companies fire people. Sometimes for cause, sometimes simply because that project isn't going anywhere anymore and they don't have need of the workforce anymore. That's hardly an imperfection. That's companies being places of business, not charities.

[tomandtish]

Doesn't stop them from firing a bunch of people when something goes wrong. They look pretty good, but they are not perfect.

Companies fire people. Sometimes for cause, sometimes simply because that project isn't going anywhere anymore and they don't have need of the workforce anymore. That's hardly an imperfection. That's companies being places of business, not charities.

Yeah. There's a big difference in how companies do it though. I remember the Dell layoffs in 2001. Michael Dell was asked if there were layoffs coming in a press conference and responded "That's not being discussed at this time". A week later began the start of what ended up being over 5000 layoffs. When asked why he said it wasn't being discussed, he responded that it wasn't. The decisions had already been made. Small consolation to those who walked into their office in Round Rock that day, were handed a pink slip, and told to leave. No warning at all.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by tomandtish
There's a big difference in how companies do it though.

Yes. How it's done makes all the difference.

I've seen people sent directly to the elevator emptyhanded, without even a chance to say goodbye. Whether or not a project still needs them has no bearing on basic decency--especially for an institution that prides itself on taking care of its workforce.

And the fact is, whether or not someone is "needed" really depends more on the whims of those with the power to fire them. I've seen a manager's pet shuffle through several different meaningless titles, always keeping her cubicle and her access to the manager's ear, while people twice her age with world-class professional experience were dismissed with barely a trace of courtesy.

Originally Posted by wartygoblin
That's hardly an imperfection. That's companies being places of business, not charities.

When a business fires people out of hand, for reasons of personal pettiness or shortsighted shifts in "strategy"--then yes, absolutely it's an imperfection, because they're wasting precious expertise and devotion. When a company can't recognize the value of employees who have helped it to become what it is--much less having given many years of their lives and souls--that company is crucially flawed.

A good friend of mine recently lost her job after spending nine years building her division from scratch. In a small way I helped her get that job--so I know that when she originally applied, the organization was so impressed with her talents and credentials they completely rewrote the position description, and gave her tremendous leeway to operate as she saw fit.

Nine years later she was fired with no warning, on a conference call. Nothing she did provoked it; she'd been in the unfortunate position of having a recalcitrant supervisor who for years did his best to downplay her accomplishments. That made her an easy target when the CEO had another of his great apostrophes, sent the entire institution on a sudden hard turn and started pruning staff. She did her job to the utmost, and had so much more to give, but idiots above fired her anyway. That's the very definition of an imperfection.

And for the record, charities behave no differently.

.

[MLai]

Sorry, but that's not really gonna work for me. Partially because it's rather elitist and partially because it sounds like serial killer logic, to be blunt.

Oh?
*Re-reads Siuis' post.*
Wow, awesome! Saved. Thanks Siuis, that's gold. I love this forum sometimes.