DreamWorks Aims to Charm Reluctant Investors

[BookMansBlues]

but Dreamworks also seems to put out more movies every year, and that alone could make the differance in world wide feature profits.

[SilverCity]

but Dreamworks also seems to put out more movies every year, and that alone could make the differance in world wide feature profits.
I agree, but to the investors, the bottom line is all that matters. Not saying that this is a good thing.

[Njen]

Actually, what is interesting is the box office gross as a percentage against the budgets of all the films from the two companies since 2004.

Dreamworks released 9 animated films since 2004 with an estimated cost of $1,114 million, making roughly $4,615 million at the box office which works out to be just over 4 times the cost (4.14).
(this data has been gleened from wikipedia and boxofficemojo.com, and is only being used as an estimate.)

Pixar have released 4 films since 2004 with an estimated cost of $542 million, and making roughly $2,233 million at the box office which also works out to be a little over 4 times the cost, in fact slightly less than Dreamworks (4.11).
(this data has been gleened from wikipedia and boxofficemojo.com, and is only being used as an estimate.)

So when you just look at the films alone, it seems on a percentage basis, Pixar and Dreamworks are performing neck and neck. But then throw in TV, and other side projects and merchandising by both companies, and it may actually look like DWA is a little ahead on the gross returns.

Of course actual revenue (after expenses and tax) is a totally different ball game, but it's interesting to note that DWA is financially a pretty good performer in the world of animation when compared to Pixar.

[BookMansBlues]

it's good that you looked into that, still 90% of the time I'll go see a Pixar Feature over a Dreamworks feature, kinda embarrassed to even say it but I only saw the first Shrek not the later ones, they just didn't interest me. Every time Pixar Releases somthing it's just a feast to the eye. Even Cars which I didn't have very high hopes for because it really was just Doc Hollywood repackaged as an Animated feature about Car Racing was still more fun for me than Shrek was (not that I didn't like Shrek I loved all the Jabs at Disney, but it just wasn't the experiance I like when I see a Pixar Film).

If those numbers are correct then I see what Katz is talking about when he mentions about promoting the stars in it. But that's exactly what I don't like about Dreamworks Animation films in general and the hollywood body at large, they put too much hype into a given actor and not into the story which is what Makes Pixars stuff so enjoyable to me. Too many "Average" people will go see a movie because of who is in it, not because they think the movie will be a great movie to watch. I'm sure Will smith is a good guy, but I don't go see a movie just because he's in it, only if the movie looks like somthing I will like would I go see it, I think most people tend to ewquate that with the cast over the substance.

I should probably Preface those statments with the fact that I really don't go and watch a lot of movies, and it's not for lack of liking or disliking but more of a time and aggrevation, so I usally go with my freinds when we can all get to gether and that doesn't happen even every month or so, so when we all go out and see a movie it's usually one that has us all very interested in it. Pixar delivers that every time, a Pixar movie is an event, a DWA movie is a all to common occurance, and not really a reflection of quality, just personal taste because I've had freinds working at DWA on and off for a while and would not want to dissparrage anything that anyone there does because wwe all know how much hard work goes into all of that.

[Ilive]

Others worry that the company lacks executives with enough heft to step in should Mr. Katzenberg become sidelined, a worry that grew more pronounced when David Geffen (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/david_geffen/index.html?inline=nyt-per) announced his retirement from the movie business last December, stepping down from the DreamWorks Animation board

I honestly think this is a good thing. It seems like the more executives a company has the worse it ends up being.

Can't wait till Monsters vs Aliens

[Meloncov]

Pixar was worth as much as it was to Disney because Disney tends to think in the very long term; they are a company that is still relying heavily of successes eighty years ago. In another eighty years, I strongly suspect that Pixar movies will still be watched, while most Dreamworks films will be forgotten; not because Pixar films are necesairly better, but because Dreamworks films tend to be rather dependant on pop culture references that will soon be meaningless.

Also, comparing box office returns is missing the point; Disney makes far more money from DVDs, merchandise, and theme parks than it does theater ticket sales.

[Njen]

Also, comparing box office returns is missing the point; Disney makes far more money from DVDs, merchandise, and theme parks than it does theater ticket sales.

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think box office returns are the yard stick for how well a company performs. But it also doesn't mean those numbers mean nothing either.

[jewalker]

Also, comparing box office returns is missing the point; Disney makes far more money from DVDs, merchandise, and theme parks than it does theater ticket sales.

DVD and merchandise sales tend to scale with the BO.

I don't believe estimated studio costs so I'm just going to look at per movie average:

Dreamworks: $512.77 million per movie
Pixar: $558.25 million per movie

Dreamworks has bigger successes and bigger failures. Pixar has a fairly steady success rate.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.