I can't help but wonder why the Happy Feet sequel took an approximately $170 million drop from it's predecessor. Now if you're not as movie savvy as I am, may I inform you that that is an unspeakably huge drop. Sure, you might have thought that in the first place, but the truth is, $50 million sounds like a lot, but is hardly anything in the box office world. Anyways, why did this shock me? No, not because they were both amazing and I don't understand why the public didn't agree. I'm trying to analyze this completely impartially. So let's see.
The first Happy Feet, though being one of few Warner Bros. animated films, was an enormous box office success, even beating out the new James Bond film on opening weekend, and took home the Oscar for Best Animated Feature, being one of only two films at the time that had beaten out Pixar studios. With this set-up, you'd think a sequel in production would be the perfect storm right? Well, not exactly. Adjusted, the first film grossed about $235 million, while the sequel only ended out with a disappointing $64 million (which, may I remind you, is a very weak number in the box office world). Now when this happens to a sequel, why does it happen? As most of us know, it's mostly because of bad reviews. Yes, Happy Feet 2 had some negative feedback, but I never heard any universal negativity about it. Even if it had gotten that universal negativity, with a first film being so successful, a dip that big is just illogical. Take Cars for example. Now THAT sequel had universal negativity, am I right? Granted, that negativity was more publicized with it being an expected-to-be-perfect Pixar film. Nonetheless, it ended its run with around $190 million, very impressive in general (though not impressive for Pixar), and not a huge drop from the first film. With Happy Feet 2 getting just mixed reviews, why didn't it have the same success as the sequels to the only other film to have beaten out Pixar at the Oscars at the time, Shrek? I realize that Dreamworks is a well-regarded animation studio and their first movie (and franchise) was Shrek, but think about it. Did the gross drop from 1 to 2? Heck no! It rose another $100 million, making it the best grossing animated movie of all time (unadjusted, that is, though still high up there when adjusted) even beating out Toy Story 3! I know, I know, we've all heard that Toy Story 3 was "the #1 animated movie of all time", but that's talking worldwide gross. Anyways, okay, so maybe Shrek 2 got that luck because it was Dreamworks and it had great reviews. But don't forget the next two films. Shrek The Third? Bad reviews. Still surpassed $300 million. Shrek Forever After? Even worse reviews! Yet still surpassed $200 million. Even though that's a meager gross for a Shrek film, and a close drop to the drop Happy Feet 2 had, no drop from $441 million, the highest reached so far by an animated film, can be that bad. However, when it's from $235 million, it can be.
Okay, so we've analyzed why it doesn't make sense, let's think of why it is, right? I have a few possible theories. One is the length between the releases of the first and second film. When releasing a sequel, it's best to make the time in between short so the kids that saw the first are still kids and will want to see the second (take Kung Fu Panda for example) or long so kids will want to see it as well as now college kids who grew up with the original (Toy Story 3 obviously being an example of that). Happy Feet 2 had a medium length let's say, which, for the most part, invalidates those two just mentioned possibilities. Say you were a young kid when the first came out, 7 years old perhaps? By the time the second is out, you're 12, and only so many 12 year olds will pay money to see a kid's film. Let's say you were like me; you were 9. Now you're 15. Whatever came out when you were 9 can't be much of your childhood, considering that's the age for most kids that they begin to lose interest in those types of films. Though my friends and I considered it to have a huge childhood impact, I doubt that's the general opinion. This time difference can also be an issue because the public can forget and lose interest in the franchise, that is, without anything to keep it prominent in their minds. Most sequels don't have to worry about this thanks to the short time in between, but when there's a long time, they usually have ways of keeping the first movies on their minds. With the release of Madagascar 3, as much as I wanted to see it, I felt that it wouldn't be a huge box office success considering the second had come out three and a half years ago, pushing towards a "long put off" sequel. Of course, it was a cash cow, and perhaps a reason for that was The Penguins Of Madagascar, a show that began just months after the release of the second film, still on since, garnering a large fanbase, and even taking home a pair of Daytime Emmys. As for Toy Story, obviously there wasn't much they needed to do; it was considered a classic by 2010. All the same, there had been the Buzz Lightyear Of Star Command spin-off movie and show as well as the characters having prominence in the theme parks. Now, as for Happy Feet, its fad faded not long after the DVD release. Not much merchandising had come out afterwards, and certainly no further continuations of the film in short films or television series. That about sums up my time theory, but I do have one other thought.
As stated before, Warner Bros. doesn't have a track record of animated movie releases. Now, I'm not saying good or successful animated movie releases, no. I'm saying they've hardly had any. Though having released more than five, which is more than Illumination Entertainment and Blue Sky, they have been around for nearly 100 years while Illumination has only been around for two and Blue Sky ten. Also, though not all the other Warner Bros. animated movies were unsuccessful, unlike Pixar, Dreamworks, Blue Sky, and now Illumnation, they were never consistent about churning out animated films. And also, their children's movies, live action or not, only take up a fraction of their total releases. Why could this have effected Happy Feet 2's gross? Well, I'm sure we've heard plenty people saying "It's a Pixar movie, I'll totally see it." or "It's a Dreamworks movie, I gotta see it." but have you ever heard someone say "It's an animated Warner Bros. movie. I have to see it."? People can only base their thoughts of the second off of the first and the very few and rare other Warner Bros. animated films, if they even know about them. And yes, basing your opinion off of the first, considering the highly positive reviews, would likely lead a person to seeing it, but may I remind you about the time washing away the fad. Also, with Warner Bros. animated films releasing sparingly, they aren't exactly "tied together" shall I say, which the other successful animation companies have done with their films. We consider Woody, Sulley, Lightning McQueen, and Carl Fredrickson to be all part of one movie family right? And same with Shrek, Alex, and Po? Well, that's not as commonly seen for Mumble, Blossom, Bubbles, Buttercup, and the Ant Bully.
Those are my strongest theories, but my only other thought is it having to do with the animation or the voice cast, but I find that unlikely. The animation of Happy Feet 2 is not 100% as good as that of the first film, but I still think its about 97%. The quality didn't decrease much, and I haven't heard any complaints about that anyways. Though Brittany Murphy was replaced, I've heard general consensus that though she is missed, there couldn't have been a better replacement than P!nk. The only other noticeably replaced character voice was Seymour, from Fat Joe to Common. Neither of which are household names, so I doubt that had anything to do with it. With the exception of a very brief cameo without their original voices, Memphis and Norma Jean were basically cut out of the film, and Mrs. Astrakhan was cut entirely. Could the famous actors Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman have made such a big difference? I don't think so, considering they didn't have much to contribute to the plot, but it's hard to tell. Let's not forget that a handful of the voices that did return are big names, such as Elijah Wood and Robin Williams, and famous actors were added to the cast such as Hank Azaria, Sofia Vergara, Matt Damon, and Brad Pitt. So, to conclude, though I have some thoughts, I still don't think any of them can fully explain why this sequel had such a huge drop from its predecessor
For more information and to be able to form your own opinions, check out the links below.
No comments:
Post a Comment