Dreamworks in talks to have Disney as it's new distributor

[skippy]

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... disney/?hp


Very interesting.

Do Iger and Katzenberg not have a history?

[Escapay]

Hopefully it works out. Maybe then we'll get another Roger Rabbit movie.

albert

[xxhplinkxx]

No need for another one, Al. The original is just fine, thank you.

[Escapay]

It certainly is, but given how strapped for cash both companies are, re-introducing a known moneymaker isn't that bad an idea.

albert

[Elladorine]

I still want to see Who Discovered Roger Rabbit.

And to think I was anxious for the supposed release date in 1994.

[Jack Skellington]

So would it be possible for all of the Dreamworks future films to be under the Disney logo ?

[goofystitch]

Just to let everyone know, the deal they are working on ONLY includes Dreamworks and does not have anything to do with Dreamworks Animation Studios, so Shrek and the Madagascar characters would not be moving in to the Magic Kingdom.

As far as Dreamworks films becoming Disney films, I don't think that is what they are planning to do. I think it would be more like the acquisition of Miramax where Disney has a deal with them, but the films are still Miramax films.

[blackcauldron85]

Just to let everyone know, the deal they are working on ONLY includes Dreamworks and does not have anything to do with Dreamworks Animation Studios, so Shrek and the Madagascar characters would not be moving in to the Magic Kingdom.

As far as Dreamworks films becoming Disney films, I don't think that is what they are planning to do. I think it would be more like the acquisition of Miramax where Disney has a deal with them, but the films are still Miramax films.

I was going to have a breakdown until I read what you wrote, Alex. I'm not opposed to DreamWorks as a whole, just their animation division, but I'd still rather DreamWorks movies be distributed elsewhere.

I wonder if DW is also talking with other companies, and, if so, which ones?

[Neal]

I hate DreamWorks Animation and all it stands for. It doesn't try to make art (which is what all films should be - regardless of genre) it just tries to make a pop-culture joke infested film. These films are immediately dated and unlike the timeless Disney animations, will most likely fade in obscurity.

However, I don't mind DreamWorks live-action stuff. "Eagle Eye" was very good, in my opinion.

So if this is just the live-action division, I'm all for it.

If it was the animation division - well, I don't even know how that'd work!

[Mickeyfan1990]

I too I'm excited for the Roger Rabbit sequel/prequel. I do hope Disney and Dreamworks make the deal!

[UmbrellaFish]

Actually, I wish it was the animation division.

It would mean that no Disney/Pixar film would ever have to battle it out against a Dreamworks film during theatrical release.

[The_Iceflash]

Actually, I wish it was the animation division.

It would mean that no Disney/Pixar film would ever have to battle it out against a Dreamworks film during theatrical release.

To be honest I wouldn't want Disney's name anywhere near Dreamwork's animated movies.

[Neal]

It'd hurt their name worse than the cheapquels did!

[drfsupercenter]

Aw... so that means no more PG-13 and R-rated action movies?

We all know Disney wants that kid-friendly image and pawns all their adult stuff off to Buena Vista or somebody...

[DisneyFreak5282]

I hate DreamWorks Animation and all it stands for. It doesn't try to make art (which is what all films should be - regardless of genre) it just tries to make a pop-culture joke infested film. These films are immediately dated and unlike the timeless Disney animations, will most likely fade in obscurity.

However, I don't mind DreamWorks live-action stuff. "Eagle Eye" was very good, in my opinion.

So if this is just the live-action division, I'm all for it.

If it was the animation division - well, I don't even know how that'd work!

Agreed. I enjoyed live-action Dreamworks films like "Disturbia", but I just can't picture 2010's "Shrek Goes Fourth" being released as a part of Disney.

[DisneyJedi]

I hate DreamWorks Animation and all it stands for. It doesn't try to make art (which is what all films should be - regardless of genre) it just tries to make a pop-culture joke infested film. These films are immediately dated and unlike the timeless Disney animations, will most likely fade in obscurity.

Apparently, you haven't seen Kung Fu Panda yet. That one's pretty timeless.

[Neal]

I've boycotted all DreamWorks animated films, so I won't ever see it.

[MrIncredible]

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... disney/?hp


Very interesting.

Do Iger and Katzenberg not have a history?

Katzenberg's not part of this deal, he's over at DreamWorks Animation, which is a totally seperate company that happens to have the same name and similar logo, but is still with Paramount for the time being.

Right now, the only one of the "SKG" three is Spielberg, who would be a huge asset to the Disney team, imagine having him on the live action side in a similar role to what Lasseter is to the animation side.

But I'm just wondering what it'll do for DreamWorks Animation, cause I can't see Disney being okay with having one of their companies be the same as a rival animation studio. Will the Animation company be forced to change their name to the likes of "Paramount Animation" or something?
Or maybe they might stay DreamWorks Animation until their current deal runs out with Paramount- which I think is either at the end of next year or the year after, and then we could get Shrek and Madagascar become Disney?

But will be nice to have Spielberg and DreamWorks live action over at Disney. Could that then mean that we could see Transformers or any other live action property they own in the parks?

[yukitora]

How awesome would it be if all the american animated studios joined the Disney label just for the heck of it

[Neal]

I'm still saying LAIKA should become a Disney subsidiary. Following Selick having Disney distribute "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and "James and the Giant Peach" it only makes sense.