Dreamworks Dumps Wallace and Gromit

Tiger4 writes "Aardman Animation and Dreamworks are splitting their relationship. Apparently Dreamworks feels they lost money on 'Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were Rabbit' and 'Flushed Away.' So off to their separate ways they go. Aardman is going back to stop motion and clay, Dreamworks will be staying with their CGI ways." In addition, Aardman Animation announced that a new Wallace and Gromit film is in the works.

Comments

I say

[MadUndergrad]

good riddance to CG where it's neither needed nor wanted.

Re:I say

[DarkLegacy]

Funny, I didn't know that Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were Rabbitway featured any CG. It seemed like it was claymation to me. Just shows how realistic CG gets nowadays.

Re:I say

[jpardey]

I think they might have used computer animation for backgrounds and unwieldy scenes, but it was mostly clay, as far as I know. However, I think the point was mainly now that we know for a fact that Dreamworks will not be contributing CG animation to Ardman.

Re:I say

[91degrees]

Quite a bit actually. Mostly just effects, but IMDB says "The movie contains a considerable amount of CGI of all kinds, from drifting fog through to the bunny rabbits in the Bun-Vac. In all, there are over 700 shots that contain some kind of digital effects work.". But spiritted away had a lot of computer generated backgrounds. This is when CGI is used properly - when you don't really notice it.

Re:I say

[clickclickdrone]

Good points although as Mark Kermode (UK film critic) noted, one of the strengths with clay as opposed to CGI is the quality of lighting and in the main, the lighting in the W&G movie was superb. CGI state of the art is damn fine but you can't beat 'real' light for making a scene look good.

Re:I say

[suv4x4]

I think they might have used computer animation for backgrounds and unwieldy scenes, but it was mostly clay, as far as I know.

In Flushed Away, it was CGI, including the characters. They *made* them look like clay though, and it looks pretty convincing, except their body language is kinda too smooth or versatile for a clay doll at times (required by the script though).

Re:I say

[jimicus]

There was an article in a local newspaper interviewing Nick Park (his company's based in Bristol, UK) - he said that while he liked the flexibility CGI offered him, he didn't like working with a US team as communication was difficult and they lost too much control over the end result.

I think this is just Dreamworks trying to gloss over that by announcing that it didn't make them any money so they want out.

Re:I say

[MsGeek]

Dreamworks basically has as much clue with regard to Aardman as Disney has with Studio Ghibli: NONE.

Dreamworks buried both Curse of the Were-Rabbit and Flushed Away. They had NO IDEA how to promote the movies, and basically threw up their hands and said "OMG it's too British." They also took Innocence: Ghost In The Shell II and buried it. That was a freaking impressive movie on a big screen. It just doesn't have the same impact on your TV.

Same with Disney. They have buried all of the movies they released for Studio Ghibli. They made more of a noise for Valiant than Howl's Moving Castle.

I think that both Dreamworks and Disney see Aardman and Ghibli product respectively as DVD fodder. I suspect that Miyazaki-sensei will be the next one to take his ball and play elsewhere. The Aardman move was in the works even before Flushed Away was released. Aardman was ticked, to say the least, about how Were-rabbit was released.

Dreamworks is dead

[Bacon Bits]

Sorry, but Dreamworks is just a name now. SKG sold out quite awhile ago.

Gromit

[blowdog]

Oh well Gromit lets have a cup of tea and a nice bit of cheese. The UK still loves you Ardman

Re:Gromit

[elrous0]

I hate doing a "me too!" post, but I would also like to chime in that there are PLENTY of us Americans who love Wallace and Gromit too (the same goes for Creature Comforts as well). And I absolutely DESPISE Dreamworks and their CGI crapfests.

-Eric

Re:Gromit

[dr00g911]

I think a distinction needs to be made between the PDI campus and Dreamworks proper -- Dreamworks actually has two separate CG animation houses. PDI/Dreamworks is the one that produces Shrek & Madagascar (halfway decent), while the other Dreamworks campus has been responsible for Antz, Shark Tale, Over the Hedge, and a multitude of other crapfests.

As an animator, the level of craftsmanship, timing & pacing in Madagascar was pretty noteworthy. They pushed the CG animated medium pretty far with huge amounts of squash & stretch, smears and exaggeration. Disclaimer: I know a couple of guys that work on the PDI campus.

That's not to say that I don't long for old school claymation and traditional 2D sometimes, but the end result is slowly becoming more about the artists involved than the tools they use if you've got a good crew and director.

I'm both happy and sad to see Aardman more away from Dreamworks, though. They'll get even less exposure in the US, but they won't have a big US corporate megalith to report to, watering down their unique style and humor.

Dreamworks...

[VAY]

...when winning an Oscar just isn't enough.

Re:Dreamworks...

[PopeRatzo]

Oscars don't come with cheques

No, but they used to come with a nice gift-bag, though.

I've had it with this cheap-ass movie industry. If Dreamworks doesn't apologized to Wallace and Gromit, I'm going to strap some blinking cartoon characters around my body and go to the next Academy Awards ceremony.

Lady Tottington

[Circlotron]

If "Tottie" is in the next movie, I'm getting it for sure. What a doll ;-) http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40707000/jpg /_40707970_w3.jpg

As Wallace might've said...

[clickety6]

"...everybody knows Hollywood's made of cheese".

"They're crackers! We've forgotten they're crackers!"

"No more Americans -- more trouble than they're worth! I could just fancy some cheese, Gromit. What do you say? Cheddar?... All's well that ends well, that's what I say. Uhmm... I do like a bit of gorgonzola..."

"It's the wrong company Gromit. And they've gone wrong"

Plus raised eyebrows and a pained look from Gromit of course!

Re:As Wallace might've said...

[elrous0]

Why do I have a funny feeling that the head of Dreamworks bears a suspicious resemblance to a penguin in a human disguise?

-Eric

Smart Move?

[FeldBum]

The best two animated films Dreamworks put out since Toy Story and they're dropping the production company? I guess we can look forward Shark Tale 2: Out of Water, Farther Over the Hedge and Madagascar II: Kung Fu Panda (one of those is actually the real name for a planned sequel). Didn't Were Rabbit win a freakin' Oscar?

Re:Smart Move?

[owlnation]

Toy Story was Pixar, not Dreamworks. Dreamworks did Shrek, which was excellent. Shrek 2 was better and Shrek 3 is coming soon.

And while WereRabbit was a brilliant movie, Flushed away was really not.

Re:Smart Move?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a few minor points:
1) Toy Story - Pixar film, not DreamWorks
2) Shark Tale 2 - Will never happen, Shark Tale didn't make enough money
3) There is no such movie Farther Over The Hedge
4) Madagascar 2 and Kung Fu Panda are seperate films

Ardman movies have been the lowest box office returns for DreamWorks Animation.

At the end of the day, DWA is a business. If it is not making money, they can't afford to keep doing it.

And besides, I don't agree on the Ardman films being the best. They were ok, I preferred the two Shreks and Over The Hedge.

Re:Smart Move?

[el_womble]

Dreamworks don't understand animated movies. They understand celebrity and set-pieces, but they don't understand movies.

Dreamworks CGI movies are a series of set-pieces held loosly together by a lame plot. This works great for kids because they just skip to the bit they like, and don't really get the plot anyway, but if you want to convince a parent to pay to go and see it at a cinema you need more. At best they draw an adult audience because of celebrity pulling power - and comes away feeling cheated.

Dreamworks was always going to be a poor choice for Aardman. Perhaps this will make Disney/Pixar wake up and adopt them. They seem to have similar goals. I'd also expect them to split their concerns so that they have Aardmen for clay and Pixar for CGI.

Re:Smart Move?

[shess]

*Shrug*. I like Shrek and Shrek 2 a great deal, but they _are_ just a series of set pieces strung together which only works due to the casting. For the most part, Pixar creates pretty amazing movies which feel greater than the sum of their parts in many ways. That doesn't mean that Dreamworks absolutely sucks, it's just a differe style.

It's like Disney versus Warner Brothers. Initially, Warner Brothers was cheap and wanna-be, but over time they really came into their own by developed a cutting wit which simply wasn't present in the Disney pieces. I don't think Dreamworks is there yet, but it could happen.

Re:How bad was it?

[Knuckles]

Exactly how unprofitable was it?

Very, very unprofitable:

Production Budget: $30,000,000
Worldwide Gross: $185,724,838

Re:How bad was it?

[clickclickdrone]

I don't have numbers handy but it was a huge hit in the UK but a fairly minor one Stateside. Nick PArks said he had a lot of trouble keeping the British humnour in as Dreamworks wanted to excise it under the impression it wouldn't travel well to the US. The fact that the film wasn't a hit vindicated their position in their mind. Parks knew the chances of making the next one the way he wanted was about nil.

Re:How bad was it?

[gbobeck]

So, lets do the math...

30,000,000
- 185,724,838
------------
- 155,724,838

This movie suffered a whopping $-155,724,838 loss.

Re:How bad was it?

[Sexy Bern]

I wish I were that unsuccessful.

Praise the Lord!

[leptonhead]

Wallace and Gromit and Aardman's other work are such uniquely funny creations (notably, with the exception of the horrid Flushed Away) that I am very happy to see them separate from the marketing machine of Dreamworks. Hopefully this means we will be getting more of that subtle, relaxed British humor as opposed to try-hard material based on focus-group approval ratings that you can expect from a U.S. behemoth like Dreamworks. Not to say that the latter doesn't have its place in the entertainment industry, because it does - as has been proven by the many excellent achievements of this company - but coupled together with Aardman, there is no synergy, just mutual deprecation.

The decision was made years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

This announcement is just the "official" one. The decision to dump Aardman was made years ago when Katzenberg was frustrated by Aardman's inability to turn Tortoise & The Hare from a deeply flawed concept (a mockumentary) into something American audiences would want to see. Aardman's refusal to relinquish the merchandise rights for W&G to Dreamworks was the final straw. Since then, we've just been seeing death spasms of this relationship.

I'm not saying either party is in the wrong, but the whole deal was a disaster waiting to happen. The surprise success of Chicken Run gave everyone rose-tinted glasses. Katzenberg only ever really wanted W&G.

Great news.

[iainl]

Katzenberg just doesn't understand Park's humour at all (he spells it humor for a start), and is responsible for just about every missed note in both Chicken Run and particularly Flushed Away. It was nice to have their cash to play with, but if it means yet more painfully compromised films which make stupid decisions in a failed attempt to appeal to Americans, then good riddance.

Now Dreamworks can go back to concentrating on dire, 'hip' CG extravaganzas with all the lasting appeal of a rotten pear.

Purple and Brown

[ettlz]

The British psyche has long had a soft-spot for all things Aardman and their distinct style of claymation, coupled with quintessentially UKian humour. Check out this example and the many others from those unflappable blobs.

Re:Simple reason

[ettlz]

Should I stick a Lady Hamilton joke in there?

Oi! You leave Neil and Christine alone, thank-you very very much!

Saucy bugger.

Re:How bad was it?

[Linker3000]

I think that should have been "What ho, Gromit - bit of a whoosh there, eh, lad?"