So why didn't DreamWorks expanded this as a franchise?
>>84340796
it had an ending, and it didn't need to expand.
>>84340829
So did Shrek. And Madagascar. And Kung-Fu Panda. You're acting like unwanted sequels are a mysterious concept to Dreamworks.
>>84341280
I wouldn't say any of those sequels were unwanted, except for maybe Madagascar.
>>84340796
Because the turtle's VA died
>>84341280
They all had an interesting universe to expand on, unlike the movie in the OP
I think it's because the film didn't make enough money.I'll be forever sad over this tbqh
>>84340796
Because it fucking sucked, anon.
It was boring, uncomfortable, and it was another goddamn liar revealed story.
>>84340796
>So why didn't DreamWorks expanded this as a franchise?
Because the skunk waifu got with the cat in the end, and they were wise enough to know the viewers wouldn't be interested in a sequel where they'd feel cucked.
>>84340796
It was sadly a box office flop...
>>84340829
Dreamworks goal is always to expand into franchises.
Anything that doesn't have a sequel simply failed to perform well enough to get one.
>>84341337
Nigga, the Madagascar sequels were great.
The comic is still going so there's that.
>>84340796
It had a videogame tie-in which expands on what happened after the end of the movie so there's that
>>84345750
this
>>84340796
Read the comic before the movie. Was understandable that they didn't make the turtle an alcoholic, the raccoon a sugar addict and that they didn't cheat on their wives, it was a kids movie after all.
I only watched it because of Bruce Willis and i haven't seen it since.
>>84340796
>>84347364
This, a movie sequel wasn't needed since the comic was always there. A second movie would not only make things confusing, and maybe the creator didn't like the first?
>>84340796
I knew one of the voice actors for this movie
If it was made into a franchise she would probably be a lot more famous now
because it didn't do as well as them
>>84341280
uh yeah? they had a lot of stories with loose ends could expand on their universes
i don't know what an Over The Hedge 2 would be about without it being to similar to the 1st
Good.
It was a decent movie that didn't need to be ruined by sequels.
No matter how good the sequels could have been; they could never keep Bruce in all of them.
I almost liked the Barnyard franchise but then I noticed how different the voice actors are from the movie and the disconnect was solidified.
>>84341366
... What? Gary Shandling's not dead.
>ONE GOOGLE SEARCH LATER
WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH THIS YEAR!?
I don't know why but this thread made me instantly think about how Open Season continues to be a bloated rotting horse corpse that SOMEONE keep punching until pocket change farts out the backend.
>>84344235
This
>>84345097
>Budget: $80 million
>Box office: $336 million
I get that a blockbuster isn't considered that unless it goes over $1B these days, but that doesn't seem like a bad showing.
Actually, after looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DreamWorks_Animation#Productions, it seems like they only give sequels to the ones that break $400M.
According to an interview with a Dreamworks exec, this one was "close... very close" to getting a sequel.
If I had to hazard a guess, they probably weren't happy with the level of control the original comic strip artist had. He made them pull a potentially lucrative endorsement deal with Walmart because he disagreed with their labor practices.
>>84349347
a movie doesn't make a profit unless it makes 100 times it's budget because the budget doesn't include the marketing which is often 350% more than the movie budget, catering, or the fact that theaters keep 90% of ticket sales.
>>84349375
>100 times it's budget
A 10 million movie would have to gross 1 billion to be profitable? That can't possibly be right.
>>84349542
It is according to /tv/ math
>>84349542
He's talking about hollywood accounting, I think
which works differently for every movie, there isn't a solid formula or number for that
>>84340796
