Rise of the Guardians – Why Did It Flop?
Now that Rise of the Guardians has taken its place among the most expensive feature animation box office failures of all time, the post-mortems begin. As usual, an analysis of a film’s pluses and minuses depends a lot on the motives and values of the person doing the job. Studio heads will be looking for weaknesses in the tried-and-true formulas that worked in previous movies. Screenwriters will see weak story structure where the Animation Directors may not. There will not be a shortage of opinion. That being the case, I want to offer mine.
Conclusion first: The culprit here is, once again, money. The budget for Rise of the Guardians was north of US$160 million and, in order to justify that expense, the creative team attempted to stretch the appeal of the story across too wide a demographic range. If they had started out with an intact and viable story, and then budgeted to tell that story in the most economical way, we would not now be poking around in the cinematic grave yard.
A quick glance at RottenTomatoes.com shows that the general public liked it more than the critics. And the critics for major organizations liked it less than critics overall. Browse twenty or thirty of the reviews, as I did before writing this, and certain aspects of the film float to the top , the primary one being Santa Claus’ depiction as what looks like a member of the Russian mafia. I searched in vain for any explanation at all about that creative choice. In all the PR interviews, the question of Santa’s Russian accent is raised, and no one on the creative team seems willing to take credit. Alex Baldwin deflects the question with, “What accent?”
It would love to have access to DreamWorks’s marketing scheme for Rise of the Guardians. Given the cast of characters, I presume they were leaning heavily on acceptance by audiences in North America. If that is the case, and if they wanted to stretch the canvas to cover “the entire family”, a Russian, tatted Santa makes no sense because North American children will have the Coca-Cola, “Night Before Christmas” Santa model in their heads. This Russian fellow would quite possibly alienate and bewilder little kids therefore. Parents who might normally take their kids to see a Santa movie will put on the brakes once word gets around that the kids are having nightmares after seeing it.
Director, Peter Ramsey, said this in an interview: “We didn’t want to make a satire, parody, or be edgy for the momentary sake. I thought that would’ve been another way of laughing at the characters, like, “Oh, look, they’re badasses now! That’s so cool!” It’s a movie for kids to go see and enjoy. The thing is, a lot of the same guys who think that way believed in Santa and those characters as kids. I think there’s enough of that stuff in the movie where a wide range of people can enjoy it.”
Read between the lines and you can feel the demographic canvas being stretched to the tearing point. The director is saying he wanted a movie that was all things to all people, a goal that suggests maybe Jeffrey Katzenberg should have hired a more experienced director. Hollywood has many dues-paying canvas-stretchers looking for work, know what I mean?
Now listen to what William Joyce was trying to do. His “Guardian” books are the basis for the film, and he was co-producer of the movie, presumably to assure the movie stays true to the books. But here is Mr. Joyce: "Because I don't want people to read the book and then go see the movie and go, 'Oh, I like the book better,' and I also didn't want them to know what happens in the movie. And I also knew that during the progress of film production, a lot of things can change. So I wanted to have a sort of distance, so we were able to invoke the books and use them to help us figure out the world of the movie, but I didn't want them to be openly competitive to each other.”
Say what? All I am hearing is a lot of what he wants the movie not to be. That is unfortunate because William Joyce is a born storyteller and a very good one. He usually tells stories for shamanistic reasons, because the tribe can use the help. Maybe he is simply out of his element in a Hollywood movie studio where the primary concern is boosting the stock so the investors will be happy. Nobody in the big studios really cares much about what the tribe might need for survival in a conflicted world. Instead, they are competing to see who can get the tribe to spend the most money.
The American feature animation industry is at a tipping point. Budgets cannot go much higher, and the big studios are not going to lower them. There will be no returning to the days of “Toy Story” or “Peter Pan”. When projects are considered for development, the primary consideration is their commercial potential. Story is secondary. We are poised for a new generation of feature animation studios that will begin with story and craft the budget to fit that rather than the other way around. Miyazaki and his Studio Ghibli operate on a pretty good production model. He makes a movie when he has a movie to make, not when the studio assembly line demands. I read someplace that “Spirited Away” cost the equivalent of US$30 million to make. That is probably in the ballpark in which the producers of Rise of the Guardians should have been playing.
Printer-friendly version
Here is an LA Times Feb. 2013 article on how Dreamworks wrote off $87 million for "Rise of the Guardians". It's failure also led to layoffs. No question, the movie was a solid box office failure, given how much it cost to produce. We can talk about WHY it failed if you want. I agree that it is gorgeous to see, but that is not so unusual any more for big budget animated films. The audiences will not start raving on Tweets because a movie is gorgeous.
A major problem, IMO, had to do with the target audience. Forget about all that "movie for the whole family" BS, when you tell a story, you tell it to an audience. "Guardians" was not for little kids, we can be pretty sure of that. Teens? Maybe, but it is not a good date movie. Adults? Okay, but what is really in the story for adults? What's the point once you get over how gorgeous it is? Nothing sticks with you after seeing "Guardians". It is an extremely light weight high-concept, high-gloss-production kind of Hollywood film, designed purely to get the rubes forking over the box office bucks. It didn't work as planned, that's all. We are likely to see more and more of these big-budget foul balls because the big studios have stopped being creative and are into re-treads.
Comparing Guardians to Brave is like comparing two mid-level race horses. They probably belong in the race but neither has a chance of winning. Both films were green-lighted too early. John Lasseter gave the go-ahead to Brave before there was even a hint of a script and before it had anything to do with Scotland. Then he played musical chairs with the creative team for two or three years and wound up with what is basically an advertisement for how far CG has come in the presentation of human hair. The script is a mess, full of errors that would have earned a first year screenwriting student a "D".
Guardians is so high-concept that it needs an oxygen mask. Treasure Planet was like that, just too high-concept to do anything. Stories ought to start with stories, but when you are churning out two or three mega-budget animated movies per year, it really is no longer about story. Hence: Brave and Guardians
The good news is that the big studios have maxed out, and the playing field is opening up for new filmmakers with stories to tell and more earth-bound budgets. The Big Three have painted themselves into a corner where they can only make movies for $200 million and up. Might as well hang out in Vegas.
well this film was far better than brave and far more beautiful to look at!!
Dreamworks Animation has not released earnings since releasing the movie. So they haven written anything off as you suggest.
I love fantasy films. That being said I saw the prevue for this a couple times and it didn't seem to draw me in. As for the "was it a flop" comment: it was stated that the film made around 62 million... and was also said that the film cost 160 million. So by the numbers it was a flop, because they didn't make their money back. Not even close. And as far as I'm concerned, 160 million for any film... I think Hollywoods priorities are in the wrong place. Even 60 million is outrageous but we Americans have no clue when it comes to money. more more more. greed greed greed. And to show for it... People spending to much and others getting WAY over paid. Not sure how "professionals" can't see the problems before spending that kind of money on a "flop". Dog Bless America.
Movie was all over the place.
The Concept was the problem.
Jack wasn't that likeable. "Me, me, me!"
The motions & animations were way too hectic.
Jack flying in the air looked strange.
No one likes it when a kid gets whacked by a
couch. No one likes seeing a character drown.
The FX were over the top & an overload.
I think the movie was great. Its not making as much money as other dreamworks or pixar movies, but as a movie it was wonderful. There have been so many good movies that didn't do well in box office, but went on to win oscar. Its just unfortunate for dreamworks is all i can say. Animation was great, visuals were great, probably the pace of the movie could have paused at times. Never the less its the best animated movie I saw this year.
I to am confused on how this movie could ever flop? I do not follow too many critics, mostly because half the time they say something isn't good when it is. However, I do know that when my friends and I (all of which are college students) finished watching the movie we couldn't stop talking about how awesome it was and so did the rest of the theater. The movie had been out for three weeks and still the theater was packed when we got there, ten minutes early might I add. Personally, I love Santa's accent (and I grew up with coca-cola Santa to), how the whole dynamic of the Guardians worked and just about everything in the movie! The animation was wonderfully done and the actors did extremely well in fitting into the characters.
When I watched it, I felt like a little kid again. The creative team did a splendid job of making the movie what they wanted it to be, emotional, heartfelt and told to fit all audiences. From the reviews I have seen, in which the ages ranged from 18 - 50 year olds, the movie was a hit for all ages. My little cousin (7yrs old) is ecstatic to watch it after I told him about it and so is his mother (28 yrs old). In fact, while I was watching the movie, a little kid behind my friends and I shouted. "Can I be the Easter Bunny when I grow up Daddy." Yeah, it sure made the theater laugh and the movie that much more enjoyable. With so much positive feedback from the viewers, there is no reason for this movie to be anything but a success.
For sure this movie flopped at the box office, Brian, causing DreamWorks to write off US$50 million within the first month of release. I suspect the true loss figure will wind up being US$100 million, but the studio is trying to soften the PR blow by writing down a little bit at a time..
The two major criticisms I have heard are (1) Santa's Russian accent and (2) It is difficult to know whose story is being told. Too many Guardians, each of whom requires his own backstory The focus is continually on the Guardian group rather than Jack.
I agree with you that the box office failure is unfortunate, especially since "Guardians" has a legitimate and worthwhile, even shamanistic, theme. Also, unless I am mistaken, this is the first big-budget animated feature film in the U.S. to be directed by an African-American. He did a very good job, and the animation in the film is awesomely beautiful. The acting is good. The bottom line is that the creative team was trying to do too much with too many diverse story elements, so the movie never really comes into focus. That is my guess anyway.
I also ask: did it flop? Box Office Mojo reports that as of today, Rise of the Guardians has grossed $62,887,346 in domestic sales. Is that bad for barely three weeks out? The Los Angeles Times reported last weekend (Dec. 9) that it was #2 in the Top 10 box office movies of the weekend. If its budget “was north of US$160 million”, then it may not be a success yet, but it seems too early to dismiss it as a flop.
Post new comment