An irreverent, inclusive, alternative parenting community
Reeling Q&A Part 3: Mediocre Kids Movies
I wanted to take the Bean to a flick this past weekend, but was dismayed that between Piranha 3D and the latest Resident Evil movie, there wasn’t anything new out there for kids. I was unable to talk him into seeing Despicable Me again (I love those Minions), so we ended up playing video games at home instead. If it had been this weekend, we might have ended up seeing the bland looking animated Alpha & Omega by default.
This got me thinking about one of the questions you asked when I solicited them a while back:
What's the cost/benefit analysis to making a mediocre kid's movie? I mean, I understand the Pixar enterprise (hire a lot of nerds to render stuff, write a good script, hire celebrity voiceovers, inject addictive subliminal messages, release movie, shit gold), but what's the matrix for a mediocre movie? Like Firehouse Dog or Curious George 2? Does anybody actually make any money off them? Do they intend to? Does the industry view them as the movie equivalent of Kraft Macaroni n' Cheese, or are they trying to make the next breakout hit and just... not? What's the deal?
There’s a lot to respond to in this question, so let me break it down piece by piece:
What's the cost/benefit analysis to making a mediocre kid's movie?
Kid’s movies aren’t different from regular movies. Nobody sets out to make a mediocre
movie, but sometimes bad movies happen to good people.
I mean, I understand the Pixar enterprise (hire a lot of nerds to render stuff, write a good script, hire celebrity voiceovers, inject addictive subliminal messages, release movie, shit gold), but what's the matrix for a mediocre movie?
Pixar is the absolute exception to every movie studio--having made 11 movies of exceptional quality that have all been smash hits. Let’s, for a moment, think of Hollywood as selling furniture instead of movies. Pixar is the small, hand craftsman while most other Hollywood studios are like Ikea. Their furniture gets the job done, but it’s pre-fab stuff meant for the masses. It takes a lot of time and a lot of work to make Pixar quality and frankly most studios don’t have the patience or desire to make movies the way Pixar does.
Does anybody actually make any money off them? Do they intend to?
Of course the intend to. Have we learned nothing from Gordon Gekko? Profit is the end goal for just about every company. And yes, they do make money from these movies which is why they keep getting made. You could make five Firehouse Dogs for the price of one Transformers. So they don't have to work to be profitable.
Does the industry view them as the movie equivalent of Kraft Macaroni n' Cheese, or are they trying to make the next breakout hit and just... not? What's the deal?
You got a problem with Kraft Mac n' Cheese? I lived on that stuff through college.
They do want breakout hits, but hits can't be conjured up in Dumbledore-like fashion. There’s no guarantee that even a quality movie is going to break out and be a big hit (think about a movie like Surfs Up). Movies like Curious George 2 exist because we, the consumer, know the brand. Hollywood knows we trust that damned monkey to entertain our kids, so we're more apt to pick up that box from the shelf. In that way it is like macaroni and cheese. We know and trust the Kraft brand, so that blue box ends up in the shopping cart.
So why does Hollywood keep making mediocre kids movies? The simple fact is that despite the enormous amount of entertainment options available to kids these days, we always want the new stuff. There was nothing new available in theaters last weekend, so Hollywood lost out on my money because my kid wasn’t in the mood to see something he’s seen before.
That is until Alpha and Omega comes out.
Got a question about movies or the movie biz? Drop me a line.
This got me thinking about one of the questions you asked when I solicited them a while back:
What's the cost/benefit analysis to making a mediocre kid's movie? I mean, I understand the Pixar enterprise (hire a lot of nerds to render stuff, write a good script, hire celebrity voiceovers, inject addictive subliminal messages, release movie, shit gold), but what's the matrix for a mediocre movie? Like Firehouse Dog or Curious George 2? Does anybody actually make any money off them? Do they intend to? Does the industry view them as the movie equivalent of Kraft Macaroni n' Cheese, or are they trying to make the next breakout hit and just... not? What's the deal?
There’s a lot to respond to in this question, so let me break it down piece by piece:
What's the cost/benefit analysis to making a mediocre kid's movie?
Kid’s movies aren’t different from regular movies. Nobody sets out to make a mediocre
movie, but sometimes bad movies happen to good people.
I mean, I understand the Pixar enterprise (hire a lot of nerds to render stuff, write a good script, hire celebrity voiceovers, inject addictive subliminal messages, release movie, shit gold), but what's the matrix for a mediocre movie?
Pixar is the absolute exception to every movie studio--having made 11 movies of exceptional quality that have all been smash hits. Let’s, for a moment, think of Hollywood as selling furniture instead of movies. Pixar is the small, hand craftsman while most other Hollywood studios are like Ikea. Their furniture gets the job done, but it’s pre-fab stuff meant for the masses. It takes a lot of time and a lot of work to make Pixar quality and frankly most studios don’t have the patience or desire to make movies the way Pixar does.
Does anybody actually make any money off them? Do they intend to?
Of course the intend to. Have we learned nothing from Gordon Gekko? Profit is the end goal for just about every company. And yes, they do make money from these movies which is why they keep getting made. You could make five Firehouse Dogs for the price of one Transformers. So they don't have to work to be profitable.
Does the industry view them as the movie equivalent of Kraft Macaroni n' Cheese, or are they trying to make the next breakout hit and just... not? What's the deal?
You got a problem with Kraft Mac n' Cheese? I lived on that stuff through college.
They do want breakout hits, but hits can't be conjured up in Dumbledore-like fashion. There’s no guarantee that even a quality movie is going to break out and be a big hit (think about a movie like Surfs Up). Movies like Curious George 2 exist because we, the consumer, know the brand. Hollywood knows we trust that damned monkey to entertain our kids, so we're more apt to pick up that box from the shelf. In that way it is like macaroni and cheese. We know and trust the Kraft brand, so that blue box ends up in the shopping cart.
So why does Hollywood keep making mediocre kids movies? The simple fact is that despite the enormous amount of entertainment options available to kids these days, we always want the new stuff. There was nothing new available in theaters last weekend, so Hollywood lost out on my money because my kid wasn’t in the mood to see something he’s seen before.
That is until Alpha and Omega comes out.
Got a question about movies or the movie biz? Drop me a line.
-
Comment by mcglory13 on September 15, 2010 at 5:53am -
This was an interesting post, but I'd like to know more about this idea that they're not setting to make a mediocre movie. The reason I'm surprised, and I know you said Pixar was the exception, is that Toy Story 2 was originally going to be direct to video, right? But it was so good they decided to put it in the theatre. This would imply that Disney was expecting it to be, um, not so good.
-
Comment by Alan on September 15, 2010 at 9:52am -
I think that, like other genres, kids films don't have to be that great for kids to want to see them. A decent trailer and advertising is all you really need to invest in to get most kids clamoring all over their parents to take them to it. Once they are there the studio wins, good movie or one they just threw together for a product tie-in.
-
Comment by Reeling on September 15, 2010 at 10:01am
-
McGlory...Yes, as I understand it Pixar didn't feel good about making sequels and since Disney owns the characters, they can do with them what they want. They started out making a direct to DVD sequel and Pixar got back involved, reworked the script and ended up with the brilliant Toy Story 2. The same went for Toy Story 3.
The bar is set a lot lower for direct to DVD stuff--especially in terms of budget. So a lot of the stuff that goes right to DVD isn't great. Though with the cooling off of the DVD buying market, I expect this might start to change.
I could go on about how mediocre movies get made...but simply put think of it like cooking. There are dozens of ingredients that need to all work in harmony in order for something to taste great. If one thing fails, the whole dish is ruined. Movie making is very much like that. Except there are dozens of chefs working on any one dish.
Capp...I don't necessarily agree. I think there's always been good and bad in kids entertainment. The cartoons of the 80s were nothing great, but we were too young to know any better. There's just more now so it seems like there's more crap out there.
Alan...That's right. All they need you to do is buy a ticket.
-
-
Capp...I was drinking a white Russian while I wrote that. And I LOVED Cat From Outer Space when I was a kid. I wonder if it holds up?
-
-
All I really remember is that glowing collar.
-
Comment by Boring User Name on September 15, 2010 at 8:03pm -
Does good mean "big budget" in kid's films (we know the reverse isn't true, presumably). Are there any recently lower budget kid's movies that are good?
And what are you talking about JTC? Herbie the Love Bug--those were crazy special effects! We had some Disney Sunday night flick about a cat saved on tape that we watched over and over and over.
-
Comment by zenmom on September 16, 2010 at 11:36am -
I want to work for Pixar.
Also, Alpha and Omega looks like fun. I'm always excited to see a half-way decent kids movie that's actually *worth* the small loan I have to take out to take the whole family out to the movies. ;)
-
-
Daria...If it's animated, budget usually factors into the equation. $$=quality in terms of animation. But it doesn't cost anything more than time and talent to write a good story.
As for lower budgeted good kids movies...? I'd say Diary of a Wimpy Kid fits that bill nicely.
Zen...I totally want to work for Pixar. I disagree about A&O, unfortunately. I think it looks kinda pedestrian.
-
Comment by zenmom on September 16, 2010 at 4:40pm
-
DGB: "Fun" for my 3 and 6 yo is a totally different measure than "fun" for you and me. ;) I think my boys will like A&O, but, no it's not on the same level as, say a Pixar movie or even the better Dreamworks movies. Then again, my kids would watch "TMNT" Every. Single. Day. if I let them. So. Yeah.
-
Comment by G to the G on September 16, 2010 at 4:49pm -
I'm still pissed about Alvin and the Chipmunks (for SHAME Jason Lee).
© 2013 Created by Offsprunger.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Offsprung to add comments!
Join Offsprung