Movies and Dilbert

Did you ever wonder why movies are too long? I’ve heard the theory that it’s because directors have too much power compared to the past, when the studio could order them to edit a movie. A top director these days has the contractual right to final edit, and the director isn’t likely to lop off the 30 minutes of boredom that took him a month to create. Brains don’t work that way. He’ll convince himself that every minute of his work is essential. If the studio wants him to make another blockbuster for them, they will agree.

And why is there so much violence in movies? A study done in 2005 showed that G-rated movies are 11 times more profitable than R-rated movies, yet the industry cranks out 12-times more R-rated movies.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/07/news/newsmakers/dove_movies/index.htm

Why is that? It’s obviously not because the public wants more R-rated movies. A theory I’ve heard is that directors are trying to win Academy Awards, and G-rated movies rarely win. Screw the public.

For the past 18 months, my syndication company, United Media, and I had been negotiating with a major movie studio to do a Dilbert movie. They wanted to do it. We wanted to do it. A top director wanted to do it. We even agreed on price. But that wasn’t enough to get it done, for reasons that have already appeared in a Dilbert comic. (I can’t tell you which one.)

So the movie rights for Dilbert are available. And I got to wondering how an investor – either a studio or a private movie investment company – would view the prospects of a Dilbert movie. Maybe you can help.

Keep in mind that most movies don’t make money. The prospects for any particular movie are worse than the odds of, for example, a technology startup company.

Still, did anyone think the first Spiderman movie would lose money? There are some movie ideas that are clearly exceptions. You know in advance that moviegoers young and old will enjoy watching Spidey jump around. With a top director and a good script, it was a relatively safe bet.

It’s the same with X-men, Batman, Superman, The Fantastic Four, The Simpsons Movie, Southpark: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, and even Garfield. I’ve fairly sure they all made money, and it didn’t take a genius to predict they would. They are clearly exceptions.

Does Dilbert fall into that category?

First, Dilbert has the potential to appeal to all ages. It has workplace themes for adults, and talking animals for the kids. And the rating could be G or PG, the most profitable type.

Second, Dilbert has lots of name recognition, which seems to have a huge impact on success. Personally, I would have watched Spiderman even if the reviews hadn’t been excellent. The Garfield movie got terrible reviews, and I’ve watched it twice, because it’s rated G and the kids love it. I haven’t watched The Simpsons Movie, but I will, despite tepid reviews. The brand gets me there.

Third, imagine the product placement potential for a Dilbert movie. That’s becoming a larger part of the overall profitability of a film. What better way is there for a technology company to introduce a new gadget than to have Dilbert use it first in a movie? Viewers wouldn’t find it too obnoxious because you expect Dilbert to have the latest gadgets.

Then there’s the curiosity factor. If you knew the theme of the movie involved Dilbert finding a girlfriend, for example, wouldn’t you automatically wonder how that would work out? Or how about a theme where we see the origins of Dogbert? Did you ever wonder how he got the way he is? When you know the characters, those sorts of stories make you curious even if you aren’t a huge Dilbert fan.

Best of all, comedies are generally shorter than dramas. A Dilbert movie would probably be about 90 minutes. That’s totally bladder friendly. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t make movie theater decisions on that basis.

One big question is whether a Dilbert movie would be traditional animation, CGI, or live actors. I think live actors is the way to go, with CGI for Dogbert, Catbert, and other talking creatures. That allows you to have star power for the main characters, and it differentiates it from the old animated Dilbert TV show.

The plot I imagine involves an origin of Dogbert as a talking dog. It’s Dilbert’s first day of work, after college, and he causes an accident in the technology lab that releases something into the water supply. The pollutant starts to change regular dogs and cats into talking animals over the course of the movie. So Dogbert would be a regular dog in the beginning, with no glasses, but be walking upright before long. From there on, talking animals would just have jobs like regular people, and none of the human characters would give it much thought.

Tell me you wouldn’t watch that.

If you know any wealthy people who want to invest in a Dilbert movie, e-mail me at [email protected].

[Correction: It has been pointed out to me that The Simpsons Movie got good reviews.]

[Clarification: The Dogbert origin story would be a "B" story, meaning it's not the plot of the movie. It's something that develops at the same time and "interferes" with the main plot. And it would only make sense with a movie that used live actors, because it allows you to go from the normal to the extraordinary in a gradual way and take the audience on the ride. For a fully animated movie, I wouldn't do a Dogbert origin B story.]

[Counterpoint: Some say the Dilbert movie has "already been done," and it's called Office Space. Quick, name a movie that hasn't already been done. How about a movie with fighting? How about a love story? Maybe a sports movie? Monsters? Cowboys? They've all been done.]

Comments

[Penis Extenders]

How penis enlargement pills work, check penis enlargement techniques.

[Peter Hill]

See How Natural Methods Can Help, Increase Your Penis Size and More !

[ChaosEmerald]

I really enjoyed the Dilbert animated show and would love to see a movie done in the same style (traditional animation) with the same voice over actors, who in my opinion were perfectly cast.

[stcoleridge]

Danny Devito is the ONLY choice for the PHB, as John Candy was the only choice for Ignatius OReilly (Confederacy of Dunces); and now that he is dead, that movie cannot be made.
But, a perhaps brilliant stroke would be to thave Devito play the PHB *and* Wally: the opposing 'forces' (the yin and yang) of the office (at least that office). Good luck.

[henry]

combining cartoon with real people? NO!!!

look at garfield & little stuart.. not good. pure cartoon is fine, look at the simpsons.

[Bill Tkach]

So, it's going to be like "Who framed Roger Rabbit?"
Or will it be like "Howard the Duck"?

To bad Drew Carey lost all that weight, he would've made an excellent Dilbert.

Sadly, humans and cartoons don't mix well. I can't think of a good movie that does it. Maybe you should just have real people, and real animals. Everything real. That would be better(ish).

Honestly, your best format is cartoon. Just shade everything slightly to make it look "top notch".

Maybe you should just do a straight to video movie.

I haven't a clue what you'd spend 1.5 hours talking about though; can you write for more than 3 squares?

[wanha]

A problem I see with making a Dilbert movie is that whereas the comic is short, sarcastic and to the point, a movie is supposed to flow. Theaters are littered with comedies that have funny scenes, but ultimately fail because they can't create a cohesive, familiar whole.

Second, most people are familiar with Dilbert just through the comics. We all imagine what the characters voices sound like, move like, etc. as we read the comic, and that may vary greatly from what goes into the film.

I'm not saying I don't think it can be done; I just think it will be very difficult to pull off in a natural way.

Btw, I really liked someone's idea here of selling shares in the movie. If you really value this forum as you say you do, why not use it to fund the movie and give everyone a chance for a piece of the pie?

[DT Strain]

If it's a Dilbert movie, it should be animated and look like the strip we've all come to know - end of story. Garfield live action was a bad idea, and people are sick of CG. Both Garfield movies were atrocious (Critics agree: 13% and 11% on rottentomatoes.com).

If you have a great idea for a Dilbert movie, please make it - make it funny - make it good. I'll watch it many times and buy the DVD. If, on the other hand, you're starting out with these formulaic notions, then please don't waste our time, don't ruin Dilbert with gimmicks or trends, and don't clog up my local theater with crap so that there are fewer viewing times available for good movies.

There are plenty of people along the way to making a movie that will worry about demographics, appeal, etc. The creator should be working against them to make something of quality despite that idiotic common-denominator marketing machine. You should be focused on making the most hilarious, grandest animated movie you can make because you're passionate about that. If not, it's time to hang it up and focus on your restaurants.

I sincerely hope that is constructive.

[Nick for Now]

This post sounds so hollow.

It's not naive to think directors make movies for reasons besides money and Academy Awards. People can tell better stories when there aren't the restrictions of a G or PG rating; THAT's why there are so many R rated movies.

It sounds like giving the Dilbert movie an interesting and enjoyable story is secondary to putting butts in the seats. You're already rich, aren't you?

[Pam]

You should sell shares in the movie, instead of asking for one or two wealthy people to invest. Sell the shares for $25 a piece, and then those who invest share in the movie's success or failure.

[Q]

I tried to read as many of the posts as I could, so I hope I'm not repeating something. My apologizes if I am.

I don't think it's possible to predict a blockbuster, but I think you can predict a moderate success for the reasons you've listed. You would just need to be able to keep costs down.

With regards to your request for investors, would it be possible to get a bunch of small investors instead of a few big ones? I'd gladly plunk down a few Gs to get in on that action. I guess this is the publicly-finanaced production previously mentioned.

What about a low-budget production with unknown up and comers, including the director? Worst case scenario would be a campy piece of crap that everyone made fun of, but I think the risk of the big studio production is a bland film that doesn't excite too many people. Either one would probably make a small profit, but it's a matter of how you want the film to go down in infamy if you worst fears play out.

[Ahmadinejad]

Live action with a CGI dream sequence Dogbert. He could be the numinous doggy that explains how the company is out to screw Dilbert. Dilbert doesn't believe and gets screwed.

Outrageous use of product placement. Dilbert "We need the new Dell PU-36, with 60 gig hard drive." Dell paid handsomely for Grandma's Boy I'm sure they would do the same for Dilbert.

Prepare sequel at Dilbert's start-up company and turning to the dark side because of idiotic employees.

Forget about attracting anyone under 25. They haven't been out in the real world long enough to appreciate Dilbert's cynicism. Would you take a 12 year old to see a movie about a jaded 40 year old? Well maybe you would because it is your character.

Use plenty of biting irony to prove you are smarter than the viewers.

Get money up front rather than back end.

[Zach]

I like the animated tv show a lot. I think the movie should be animated like The Simpsons movie. Also, bring back the tv show!! That was great.

[Mike Scott]

I recommend watching the EXTRAS section on the MONSTER HOUSE DVD. They used performance-capture, but they did it in such a way that the characters look eerily real.

Seriously, give it a watch. I can envision the DILBERT characters fitting into that niche awesomely. The performances could be voiced and acted by the big names, but their performances will be captured with little white ping-pong balls and converted into awesome 3D characters.

The live action thing with real actors really makes me cringe. Like with Garfield - the dog's a real dog! Come on! And John's a real guy! That's just wrong.

[B%E]

I'd be more inclined to see it if it were animated instead of live action. You might be able to pull live action off but live action-CGI combinations are hard to do well.

Either way - It's Dilbert, I'm going.

Love your work. Peace

[Keld Andersen]

Excellent idea! I would watch it.

Have you seen a movie called "Office rats"?

It looks like the Dilbert universe, but tilted towards the Wally side (if that makes any sence)

its about a guy that finds out that if he will be more like Wally, everyting goes much easier.

[le Big MAC]

Literature is split between short stories and novels. (Novellas and novelettes are a 3 legged dog exception.) And likewise, movies are divided into 90 minute fluff and epic introspective art pieces.
Studios usually make the former based on a Pitch: young sucker barrels into the executive office, tells the story in one sentence or less. Executive tells ingenue to piss off, turns around and gives idea to his already-filthy-rich, bitter house script gurus. The Aristocrats! The longer ones are based on a completely different process traditionally known as Writing, but the end result is the same.
Snarking aside, here are some good reasons for director's cuts and the movie taking as long as it needs to:
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. Pulp Fiction
3. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly
4. Spartacus
5. Fantasia
6. Dawn of the Dead (1979 original)
7. Gangs of New York
8. Mulholland Drive
9. Kill Bill (Whole Bloody Affair)

Remember these long director cuts almost never make a theatrical showing except for an occasional snooty festival, and are only seen on DVD.
1 and 5 are superb arguments for G rated entertainment, but the rest are also excellent arguments for R and NC-17 rated entertainment. Can adults have our fun too?

So did you proposition Barry Sonnenfeld to direct? He famously said "Never make a movie longer than 90 minutes, there's no need for it." I love all his movies but-well, I think I've made my point to the contrary.

[Ted]

I have to say that just from hearing about it, I probably wouldn't go to a Dilbert movie with live actors. The animation works well, and I've always enjoyed the TV series. An animation would make the movie more approachable, and people would really recognize the characters from the strip or TV show.

[Mark Thorson]

I suggest looking at the movie
The Mascot, by Ladislaw
Starewicz. It combines live
action with stop-motion
animation of dolls. In
particular, the animation of
the little dog is superb.

http://www.awn.com/heaven_and_hell/STARE/stare4.htm

http://www.awn.com/mag/issue5.02/5.02pages/schneiderstarewicz.php3

Imagine animating Dogbert and
Catbert that way. It would
look GREAT. You could even
use figures based on the
existing stuffed toys, which
would be a good marketing
move. Might want to
renegotiate the deal with the
toymakers, if you do that.

[Karl H.]

The comparison between the Garfield movies and a potential live-action Dilbert one is interesting. It's also why I think such a Dilbert movie would fail.

Garfield is the main character of that comic. As long as he is spot on, people don't care much what Jon, Odie and the others look like. Seeing him "realistically" animated is worth the price of admission. But Dogbert is, in spite of everything, just a supporting character. It's Dilbert who has the potential to draw a crowd. So unless a visual of the live actor makes people go, "Cool! That's EXACTLY Dilbert. They really nailed him!", I don't see the movie as having much success. And where would you find a bucket-headed guy like that?

In contrast, the live-action Flintstones movies didn't need 100% accurate main characters, because the props and sceneries drew so much attention anyway. But a Dilbert setting wouldn't be quite as impressive. ("Wow! They built an actual cubicle for this scene!")

[swio]

I just can't see a Dilbert movie being successful.

Only a certain section of the population likes and reads Dilbert. Dilbert has a very strong appeal, but only to some people. This is different to the Simpsons which has good appeal to most of the population. You don't have a big enough audience.

On top of the audience size you have another problem. I like Dilbert and your philoso-tainment ramblings but I doubt I'd watch a Dilbert movie. Dilbert is mental, about words and ideas. Its not very visual. 90% of Dilbert cartoons could be retold in a couple of paragraphs of words and be just as funny. This is why you can write successful Dilbert books. If you tried to turn an episode of the Simpsons into a short story it would come out as dumb and tedious.

The Simpsons is very visual which is why you can have a successful Simpsons movie. But a 200 word crammed page Simpsons book ? I don't think so. For the same reasons in reverse a Dilbert movie would not work.

[Julian]

I for one always wanted to know why the Dilbert cartoon failed. It was sublime in my opinion. Can you please enlighten us Scott?

[Pi]

rediculous amount of comments, not reading them all, doubt anyone will read this....

Dilburt: The Garbage Man Saves The World!

[Isaac Calon]

I'm way late to this party, and I apologize if you've heard some or all of this before, but I need to tell you that your proposed movie idea for Dilbert sounds terrible. The images I have in my head of mixing CG with live actors is painful to visualize.

The problems as I see it:

1. CG works really well with critters we don't already have--oliphaunts and cyborgs with lightsabers--but it is immediately recognizable as CG and therefore distracting whenever you use it to make critters we have--like Neo during the Matrix movies or talking animals. A distracted audience gets ripped out of your world and away from your story.

2. The Dilbert brand works really well in all kinds of print, but I don't think it crosses over into other media very well. I've been a Dilbert fan since reading "It's Obvious You Won't Survive by your Wits Alone" as a 13-year old shopping at Sears. I read Dilbert every weekday. Also, I never play any of the Dilbert games on the site, nor did I ever watch the cartoon. I don't want anyone telling me how Dilbert or Dogbert sound or how they look--I already know those things, but you're placing my moist robot preconceptions in jeopardy by showing me something different. I don't need to know why Dogbert and Catbert can talk (and hold down jobs when they wish). I don't want to know, because your explanation is unnecessary and will therefore be unsatisfying.

3. I'm not sure if the audience for your movie will be the same as the people who watch Garfield or Disney Films. For a Dilbert movie to remain such it needs to have that sarcastic, sometimes violent, and often layered humor that adults like, plus you'll need to have the knee-jerk reaction jokes for the kids--a meeting moth beating itself on a table is funny to adults because it represents someone we know at work, and it's funny for kids because it's silly and violent. Ratbert experiencing immortality by living in a coffee can is only funny to one of these groups--the kids just see a rat in a can. How do you reconcile these audiences and keep the Dilbert brand? Further, how are you planning to reach new audiences? I think that you're more likely to alienate your current readers by challenging their ideals for Dilbert than to pull in a different audience by putting lipstick on the pig, so to speak.

4. Product placement pisses an audience off. You're right in that if it is invisible it will feel natural, but good luck convincing your product makers that it's a good idea not to have the labels facing the cameras.

I could go on, but it occurs to me now that you may be more interested in whether the film would make money than whether I would watch it. I wouldn't watch it without serious endorsement from someone I respect--somewhere along the lines of "I can hardly believe how funny it was and how few product placements I noticed! Dilbert's voice is so funny and dead-on, and the plot really feels natural in the world in which it's set." Also, "They used CG? I didn't notice. I thought it was all genetic engineering or amazing puppetry."

But it will almost certainly make a little money, maybe a lot, joining the glut of other so-so moneymakers that other people keep throwing their money at. Frankly, I'm bored of CG and tired of hero movies. Chances are very good that your movie will lessen Dilbert's appeal to this long-time fan.

[Eric]

A movie that hasn't been done? How about one where we see the struggles of god creating the world?

BAM! I win!