Spark

>>86837412
Something clearly happened, but it will only be known once it does come out.

Probably some of the producers wanted it to burn.

>>86837412
That fox has big hooters.

And animated movie distribution is always odd when it isn't done by a major studio. There are like three flops for each good one so it is a high risk affair.

The failure of Ratchet & Clank, with a similar art style, may be scaring investors.

This has been a weird year for talking animals.
The Good Dinosaur? Disney flop.
Pets? Meh-ed out of public attention fast despite a lot of marketing.
Zootopia? Unexpected and hit with all ages despite no marketing, turned into date movie in Asia.
Finding Dory? Met expectations but was still commercially overshadowed by its sibling, Zootopia.

Rock Dog had its Chinese distribution sabotaged.
And Sing is probably not going to do too well.

It has been a commercial Rollercoaster for the concept of talking animals.

>>86838222
No, she has small hooters. Small!

>>86838222

>It has been a commercial Rollercoaster for the concept of talking animals.

frigging kids, toom much COD and Anime....

File: GadgetPfft.jpg (12KB, 271x269px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 271x269px

If no one wants to distribute it, make it a direct to dvd.

>>86838222
It was weird how there were so many talking animal movies this year.

Really goes to prove that only Disney can do them these days

>>86837412
might have something to do with fat white ape at the top center and how it looks like an albino nigger.

i could easily see scores of PR people and advertising agents grimacing at that. not to mention probably even some of the producers.

going to go out on a limb and say she/it's probably not the only questionably racists character.

>>86838222
>That fox has big hooters.
Quit makin shit up

File: 56388698.jpg (77KB, 473x351px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 473x351px

>patrick stewart

>>86838222
Didn't Pets and Dory make more money than Zootopia domestically, the latter by a margin?

File: Image1.png (129KB, 496x816px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 496x816px

This was drawn way back when the movie was first posted on /co/. Edited out the fox. Too lewd.

File: Spark_chopi.png (1MB, 665x771px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 665x771px

But this movie is seriously starting to piss me off.

File: hiccup-eh.png (83KB, 171x208px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 171x208px

>>86845202

explain.

looks like another "journey to the west" except with more animals and in space.

>>86837412
that robot
only if he has a better head design, i would fuck it

>>86845219

looks generic, maybe story will save it.

I decided to root for smaller studios, monopoly is not good for market.

I'm surprised Netflix or Amazon did not want it.

>>86845425

what? If it´s true that's sad

File: Home1.gif (24KB, 193x144px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 193x144px

>not adapting this superior concept

>>86846534

>dat mind switch episode

>>86839360
Talking animal kids movies seem pretty common every year, just usually done by smaller studios.

>>86845166
Domestically they did better, Pets only earned $20 million more, but they had a lot more marketing. And merchandising.

That just highlights how badly they misjudged the winning horse.

>>86847804

you're wrong, they marketing was okay for Zootopia, a little weird (mock posters, asking literal furries to promote the movie) but it wasn't "minimal".

>>86837412
>monkey people
Well, that's not super common. Might be nice.