Disney

Warner Bros. Discovery Shoot Themselves in the Foot and Act Like Everything’s Fine

Analysis /

It boggles the mind! At a time when every streaming service is racing to cram as much content as they can afford into their services, one decides to go in the opposite direction.

You’ve not doubt seen the stories; dozens of animated shows disappearing from Warner Bros. Discovery’s streaming services, almost-complete films scrapped, artistic endeavours cast off as mere implements of a tax-avoidance strategy, creators finding out their own shows were yanked via social media. All in all, it’s a series of bad news eminating from the company no matter who you are. And before you ask, no, the company’s stockholders didn’t fare any better either.

The most obvious question (why?) is a bit odious. Numbers were crunched, the costs of merging two companies have to be met, and the results say as much. Except the response is near-universal and the only people that are apparently pleased are those at the very top. The less obvious questions concern the decisions that revolve around the strategy. The company cans a load of content to save a buck; then what?

Well, on the one hand, the company thinks that by slimming down their offerings, they can create growth from a smaller core audience. On the other hand, that’s 20th Century cable network thinking in a 21st Century streaming age. Perhaps it’s no surprise given that HBO pioneered the premium approach in the first place by charging more, but offering the kind of entertainment you couldn’t find anywhere else. That’s a business model that’s over the hill though. Streaming is a winner-take-all game that Hollywood only realised too late when Netflix lapped up streaming rights for basically nothing and locked studios out of their own content for those crucial first years.

You see, with streaming, you either offer everything to everyone, or watch consumers use your competitors. Now everyone is playing catch-up and only Disney, with its exceptionally deep pockets, can lay claim to gaining ground. They did not buy 20th Century FOX just for kicks, they needed that company’s library, production capabilities, and brand to expand Disney+’s offerings to truly cater to everyone.

Where does animation fit into all this? Animation tends to appeal to a wide variety of audiences and tends to remain perennially popular. That makes animation good for a service’s library. Old shows can sit there, waiting to be discovered (or rediscovred). I cannot fathom that the marginal cost of storing and streaming content (compared to producing it) is enough to justify removing it altogether. How easy could it have been for WBD to simply stop producing new shows instead of obliterating them like they did?

The other aspect is that kids like animation. They like it a lot. Kids don’t have control over which streaming services they use, but their parents do. It’s not as emphasised now as much as it used to be, but a key focus of Netlfix’s marketing approach is families and Disney have followed suit. How many parents are re-evaluating their subscription to TWD’s services now? Throw in a cost of living crisis and it’s not hard to see where the trimmings might come from. Fast forward 5-10 years and you have a company that’s broken just about all of the Twenty Two Immutable Laws of Marketing.

So is animation a root cause or merely collatoral damage? I’d say it’s a mixture of both seeing as animation is expensive to produce but also tends to deliver greater long-term value; emphasis on the tends to. One could argue that both Warner Bros. and Discovery have failed to devote enough time, energy, and resources to their animated offerings, saw the writing on the wall, and simply decided to give up.

 

Warner Bros. Discovery Shoot Themselves in the Foot and Act Like Everything’s Fine Read More »

The Animation Oscars are So Utterly Not Relevant and We Should Stop Pretending They Are

Opinion /

The Oscars in general are struggling with relevance in an age of streaming and a population that has better things to do yet the animation community, year after year, finds plenty to alternately celebrate and complain about the animated awards. Why even bother getting worked up over something that is no longer relevant?

There was a time when the animated Oscars could be considered relevant but those days are over. In case you missed it, this year’s ceremony dispensed with the Best Animated Short category from the live broadcast (relegating it to a prerecorded segment), and the Best Animated Feature went to Disney’s Encanto; the studio’s ninth win in ten years, and 13th win in 15 years (including Pixar films).

Which, if you’re the director of a Disney animated film, almost has to feel like a participation trophy, right? You received it because of what you did not how well you did it. The award may be worth something personally, but to everyone else, it’s like the New England Patriots winning another Superbowl; exciting for them, boring (and skippable) for the rest of us, and a concern for the NFL that needs high viewership. Disney is going to release a film every year, so what’s the point? That’s strike one.

It’s not a perfect system, but at least the Annie’s acknowledge that award ceremonies are capable of becoming dominated by the films intertwined with the voting membership. Hence their ‘Best Indie Feature’ category. The Oscars skates long and hard on its reputation as the pinnacle award in movie-making yet repeatedly baulks at recognising the downright refusal of its membership to consider animation as an equal to live-action. Why even bother participating in something that shows no sign of treating you any better? That’s strike two.

Do you know anyone who watches an animated film because it won an Oscar? Of course not, everyone watches them when they are released and instantly move on to the next new film. Let’s be honest here, the Oscars are as much a promotional/marketing machine as they are a recognition of the best. There is, however, no longer an ‘Oscar bump’ to boost winning films and in any case, films on streaming networks don’t obtain the same financial benefit. Recognising the best film from the previous year is also a laughable exercise in 2022. We’ve moved on to this year’s films which are so often in practice, simply better. Everything from 2021 is so far in the rearview mirror, we can’t even see it. So you watch a film and nine months later it wins an award? Do you care? Do you feel validated that you spent the time wisely? I wouldn’t and I suspect I’m not alone in that regard. That’s strike three.

Studios may continue to see value in gunning for an Academy Award but perhaps its time the industry as a whole just moves on. Consumers certainly have.

The Animation Oscars are So Utterly Not Relevant and We Should Stop Pretending They Are Read More »

Scrat? SQRAT? Clearing up Some Confusion Surrounding the Lawsuits over the Ice Age Character

9 Comments / Analysis /

This week, ‘SQRAT’ creator Ivy ‘Supersonic’ Silberstein celebrated the postscript of over a decade of litigation against Blue Sky Studios/FOX (subsequently Disney). A lot of articles (and there are quite a few) comment that Disney can no longer use the character ‘Scrat’ or create any more films featuring him. Such an assertion isn’t entirely correct and once again highlights the muddy waters that lie between copyright and trademarks. Read on to find out why. …

Scrat? SQRAT? Clearing up Some Confusion Surrounding the Lawsuits over the Ice Age CharacterRead More »

Scrat? SQRAT? Clearing up Some Confusion Surrounding the Lawsuits over the Ice Age Character Read More »

Animation Fashion: Watches, Kimono and Makeup

Misc. /

Fashion and animation go quite well together don’t you think? The former sees no shortage of inspiration from the latter, and the latter is rapidly expanding its fashion sense in recent years. It’s no surprise therefore, that articles on the topic of animation-related fashion come up rather frequently so here’s a few recent ones to check out.

…

Animation Fashion: Watches, Kimono and MakeupRead More »

Animation Fashion: Watches, Kimono and Makeup Read More »

Quick Notes: Shrek & Fox’s NFT Hype

1 Comment / Opinion /

This is just a quick note on two topics that I can’t let pass by but which I don’t have enough to say to warrant a full post.

Shrek


It’s 20 years old and no, I can’t believe it. The film came out just at that awkward point in your life when you’re too old for kids stuff and a bit too young to appreciate more mature fare. I went to see it anyway and I’m glad I did.

The Guardian posted a review by Scott Tobias that’s decidely unflattering but it misses the point entirely. Yes, Shrek doesn’t look so great in hindsight given everything it spawned, but at the time it was groundbreaking.

For the decade prior, all that audiences had were Disney’s renaissance and Pixar’s golden age and that’s not really a choice. Almong comes Shrek with two very important qualities: 1. it goes in the opposite direction and, 2. it mercilessly pokes fun at Disney’s films.

That second aspect was something new to most audinces which made it incredibly fresh while painting the old classics in an entirely new light. Disney themselves had to admit as much and produced films such as Disenchanted and Tangled in the years following Shrek.

From this vantage point, the films holds up rather well. It’s place in animated history was assured a long time ago (despite Mike Myers’ atempts at a Scottish accent).

FOX Hypes an NFT show

Yup, I’m scratching my head too. The news was announced at an upfront which probably tells you everything you need to know.

If you’re reading this post, it’s already too late to get into NFTs. The hype train sailed over a month ago and it sure isn’t going to hang around for this show to be produced.

As for the entire concept, I sort of get it? I think FOX is placing a bit too much faith in the idea that fans will pony up for exclusive content and bragging rights to owning pieces of a show. Cels and original art has been around forever and owning the only copy of something is quite a bit different from owning a receipt that says you own it.

It’s all part of the broader attempt to exploit the value of digital goods which by their nature, have no real value since they can be infinitely and perfectly replicated for extremely little cost. NFTs are just the latest trendy way of doing so. I don’t hold out much hope that this show is described in the future as groundbreaking.

Quick Notes: Shrek & Fox’s NFT Hype Read More »

Pixar Employees Learn the Hard Way that their Films Aren’t so Superior

Industry /

Lots of films go straight to VOD in light of the COVID pandemic, but Disney made a point of upcharging for the latest blockbuster releases. With new Pixar films being released without an upcharge, some employees are upset at their apparent downgrade in status.

Aeons ago (OK, five years ago), I wrote a somewhat incendiary post for Jerry Beck’s Animation Scoop where I argued that Pixar’s films were not the stellar, unimpeachable magnificence they are marketed as. My argument was they while their initial films were, the industry soon caught up. With a rash of sequels [then] scheduled to be released, I pointed out that Pixar’s films were, for all intents and purposes, average films designed to appeal to the broadest of audiences and make the most money.

The responses were, well, not in agreement to say the least.

Fast forward a few years later, and Disney announce that the soon-to-be-released ‘Luca’ will be released on Disney+ but crucially, will not command an additional fee on top of normal subscription charges.

This isn’t sitting well with Pixar employees:

In many ways, this tweet speaks to the ego of cinematic filmmaking. When only a select few films got made let alone receive a cinematic release, those films are seemingly ‘better’ than ever other.

With times a changing, Pixar’s latest and greatest find themselves on the same playing field as every foreign, independent, and two-bit animation studio out there. Does this devalue their work? No, but it clearly stings to realise that you’re not creating superior films based on some grand, artistic purpose that the cinema ordains upon its releases. Instead you’re creating a film that’s just a flash-in-the-pan along with a million others. Vying for attention down in the televisual muck in a dogged, scrappy fight that will never end.

Such feelings are also somewhat disingenuous. Feeling ‘demoralised’ is one thing, but to be so at a time when many of Pixar’s former colleagues at Blue Sky are out of a job and looking for work?

Another flake falls from the facade to reveal a bloated ego filled with hubris and Pixar’s reputation tarnishes a little further.

Pixar Employees Learn the Hard Way that their Films Aren’t so Superior Read More »

Nickelodeon Kills the Golden Goose in Search of Avatar Gold

3 Comments / Opinion /

Avatar: The Last Airbender is the quintessentially perfect animated TV series. Its three seasons (or books) set the gold standard with meaty stories and lovable, complex characters. Recent news that Nickelodeon are establishing a special studio to expand the Avatar ‘universe’ is akin to killing the goose in search of perceived gold within.

…

Nickelodeon Kills the Golden Goose in Search of Avatar GoldRead More »

Nickelodeon Kills the Golden Goose in Search of Avatar Gold Read More »

Here’s the Reasons Disney Shuttered Blue Sky

Analysis /

Deadline are relaying the news many were fearing ever since Disney acquired FOX in 2019. Blue Sky was owned by FOX and its long-term future was in doubt with many wondering whether Disney would retain a third feature animation studio. That question is now answered, and the answer is no. Blue Sky will be wound up in April (two months from writing) and all features currently in progress are cancelled.

Impacts

Blue Sky had about 450 talented employees and was the only major feature animation studio on the US east coast. Far removed from the industry hub in California, but very close to some of the top schools in the country.

With Blue Sky gone, the wider region as a whole will feel the impact. Retaining talent in the greater NYC area will be more difficult, and the pool of resources will shrink as a result.

This is all the more depressing when we keep hearing stories about how the animation industry is booming and business has never been better. There may not have been room for Blue Sky within Disney, but there certainly was room for it within the wider industry.

Disney decided not to simply spin-off or sell Blue Sky, and while this says a lot about Disney (they don’t want to create competition if they can avoid it), it also suggests that they felt they couldn’t find a buyer if they tried.

Is the industry saturated with studios?

It’s certainly possible. Major feature studios are a dime a dozen, especially once you look overseas, and even in the US they are more than a few:

  • Disney Feature Animation
  • Pixar
  • DreamWorks (NBCUniversal)
  • ReelFX
  • Laika
  • Sony
  • Warner Bros.
  • Paramount

and these are just the major ones. There’s dozens of independent and boutique studios putting out their own films or producing on behalf of the likes of Netflix. Throw in the oversees studios such as Illumination and suddenly the marketplace does seem a bit crowded.

Despite the fact that animation is weathering the COVID storm much better than live-action, it has also lost the ability to release films in cinemas; perhaps the last level playing field remaining for film releases. Some studios’ decisions to switch to a ‘digital-first’ or simultaneous digital/cinema release can’t have helped matters either. Streaming is booming, but the economics for streaming services other than Netflix remain a bit murky.

The release decisions behind films such as ‘Onward’ and ‘Soul’ are less about pioneering digital so much as hard economics; studios do after all, have to pay for the films before they earn a cent from them. COVID certainly brought the inevitable changes forward by a good half-decade, but many studios were not prepared for the change and were still producing films based on the expected revenues from a theatrical release. This, I believe, was probably the last nail in the coffin for Blue Sky.

What Likely Killed Blue Sky

As alluded to in Disney’s statement:

“Given the current economic realities, after much consideration and evaluation, we have made the difficult decision to close filmmaking operations at Blue Sky Studios.”

This is true for a few reasons

The first is that FOX never had their own streaming service. They relied on Hulu but that service is very much known more for TV than for films even though it does carry the latter. Without its own service, Blue Sky’s films were relegated to other streaming services and were never able to build their own niche with audiences.

Secondly, because of this, there is no audience eagerly awaiting the next Blue Sky release. FOX never crafted a unique brand image for the studio that spoke to the kind of films it made. Instead, Blue Sky became synonymous with ‘Ice Age’; a single franchise.

Thirdly, because of the first two reasons and perhaps most critically, Disney simply felt they already extracted all the value from the studio already. By that I mean that moving forward, all signs point to Disney+ as being the primary avenue for delivering new content from Disney as a whole. There is also the matter of library content of which Disney has a vast and rich collection of animated features of its own let alone Pixar’s. Crucially, it now also owns Blue Sky’s as well. The main value of Blue Sky as far as Disney+ is concerned is in its library, and by owning that, they can extract revenue without the cost of producing new films.

Yet they are producing new Disney Feature and Pixar films, why not for Blue Sky as well?

Simply put, it’s a combination of all three factors. Blue Sky wasn’t afforded the chance to build their own streaming audience or to build a brand image that aroused excitement from such an audience. Now that they are owned by Disney, that company is not going to spend the time, effort and money to do so because they don’t perceive a payoff down the line (doubly so with COVID) AND because they’ve already paid for Blue Sky’s library which is valuable in itself.

Contrast it with Disney’s purchase of Pixar back in 2006 when the latter was very much firing on all cylinders with audiences salivating at the though of each new film, and heralded a new way of making films that people wanted to see. Disney had neither and saw great value in acquiring Pixar for not only their library of films but also for their upcoming slate AND their way of doing business. Does Blue Sky add any of that to the greater Disney empire? Nope.

The demise of Blue Sky was perhaps inevitable as innovators outmaneuvered not just it, but its parent company FOX as well. There’s a reason Rupert Murdoch decided to sell it after all. What the future holds for the wider industry is unclear, but it does hint that further consolidation is likely.

Although this is not surprising in the least, it’s downright disappointing that Disney did not find a better solution for the sake of Blue Sky’s employees and the east coast as a whole.

Here’s the Reasons Disney Shuttered Blue Sky Read More »