ozzy_main ozzy_main
Feature Film

Disney Will Release ‘Ozzy’ in Spain Tomorrow

Not every Disney release can look like Moana. Disney’s foreign distribution arm Buena Vista International will release the Spanish/Canadian co-pro Ozzy in Spain tomorrow.

The family film offers a twist on the prison break genre and promises “Pixar-like quality and fun.” Here is the English-language trailer.

The star of the film is a beagle named Ozzy who ends up at a prison for dogs, run by dogs:

Ozzy, a friendly, peaceful beagle has his idyllic life turned upside down when his family leave for Japan. There’s only one problem: no dogs allowed! Unable to bring their beloved Ozzy along for the ride, the Martins settle on the next best thing, a top-of-the-line canine spa called Blue Creek. This picture perfect place turns out to be a facade constructed by its villainous owner to capture dogs. Ozzy will soon end up in the real Blue Creek, a prison for dogs, run by dogs. Ozzy will have to avoid danger and find strength in his new friends, Chester, Fronky and Doc to escape the prison and return home safely.

Directed by Alberto Rodriguez (a director on Pocoyo) and written by Juan Ramón Ruiz de Somavía, the $10 million film is a co-production between Spain’s Arcadia Motion Pictures, Capitan Araña, and Pachacamac, and Canada’s Tangent Animation. Pre-production was done in Spain, followed up by animation in Canada. When the project was announced in 2015, Tangent COO Jeff Bell told Variety that he hoped the film would “spin into additional Ozzy adventures.”

No American release date has been announced. Signature is releasing in the U.K. and EOne in Canada.

Character design concepts for Ozzy by Javier Ledesma.
Character design concepts for Ozzy by Javier Ledesma.
  • Phin68


    • They did distribute and animated Planes. So this is really not a shocker….

      • Phin68

        At least Planes has competent animation.

    • Swift S. Lawliet

      Disney is no stranger to releasing foreign animated movies under the Buena Vista International label, they released this Japanese movie in France: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bU06h4x9UQ

      • Phin68

        I wouldn’t compare a (pseudo) Studio Ghibli film to something like this.

  • Fried

    I understand why use CG for big American theatrical films, it helps general audiences get away from stigma of “animation is for kids!” because adults need to be tricked into thinking they’re watching live-action to give a cartoon a chance, but why don’t these low budget movies just make their films in 2D? They know things like thing, Gnomeo and Juliet, Underdogs, Tom the Cat: The Movie are only going to do modest at the box office. They may as well make it cheaper by having it 2D. The production value will go up because it’s much easier to find a small, talented team of traditional artists than CG tech engineers to make default fur texture look good. The budget will deflate significantly. It’ll probably do better because they feel like actual alternatives rather than Disney/Pixar cheap knockoffs.

    If people in Spain wanted to watch a CG Disney movie, they would. They aren’t banned there. These types of movies seem to bank on delusional grandparents who will just take their kid to see anything animated because they assume it’s all Disney, or at the very least, DVD sales from the bargain bin.

    It just seems to make no sense financial sense to spend $10 mil on a CG animated film to try and bank on families and children when they could do the same with 2D for a fraction of the cost and probably do better because at least the 2D visuals will hold up better and actually make people think it could be a decent movie.

    • Hankenshift

      No. CG or Hand Drawn–wouldn’t matter. No one cares but a tiny fraction of a fraction of us who miss hand drawn animation. But it wouldn’t help this thing either–looks like a story less and characterless mess. Probably cheaper to do in CG (certainly looks it). The vast majority of people don’t care if it’s cg or hand drawn. They just want a good movie. This doesn’t look like one.

      • Fried

        “They just want a good movie.”
        First of all, that’s simply not true, and there are many, many, many movies to prove that train of thought wrong. Secret Life of Pets and Minions are among the top grossing films for animation while Kubo was basically a loss. Fortunately for Kubo, it doesn’t matter, they will still make movies.

        But the point being these knock offs spend money to cash in on Disney-styled movies but it’s much harder to trick audiences with CG because it’s so easy to make it look bad. Whereas 2D is easier to “trick” people with the quality. The Disney direct-to-video movies could easily trick people into thinking they were done by the main animation team even though they were often used for training animators. Films like Alpha and Omega and Underdogs cost nearly as much as the recent Winnie the Pooh, and that was done with an inflated Disney budget. A film like that could probably be done on an even smaller budget with another studio.

        Visual production value would go up, budget would go down, crew size would probably go down, it would be easier to make back your budget, and it’s often easier to find people skilled in hand drawn and digital animation than it is in CG, as evident by the concept art alone. From just a business point of view, there seems to be no point in investing in a CG film because most of these low-tier films barely make enough money back to fund a second film. Yet, all these studios keep doing it like somehow they’re milking a cash cow. All they’re really doing is buying milk and selling it at a 50 cents higher thinking any profit is good profit.

        The story would still be terrible, but at least having some active 2D feature productions could be the smallest silver lining from these crap films.

        • ea

          But why make mediocre-to-bad kiddie animated films? Make something unique, for adults, and with a vision. The animation industry needs more Anomalisa and Waltz with Bashir, not Norm of the North or The Wild Life.

          • ike

            You forget that creative people is not usually the one that has the money.

            As much as I agree with you, if I were an investor I would probably go for something small but ‘secure’ than going for small and ‘breakthrough’. People with money (usually) do not like to take risks, so we keep seeing the same story over and over and over in our theaters. And this apply also to live action films.

          • ea

            Labor issues aside, Sausage Party was a small AND risky movie, and it paid off; it was a big middle finger to these types of bland, kiddy animated movies.

        • Hankenshift

          Well, audiences emotionally connected to Secret Life of Pets and laughed with Minions. The character development and storytelling in Kubo isn’t very strong. The artistry is nice–but emotionally, it’s very dry, and it will not turn a profit. It didn’t connect with audiences.

          Traditional or CG (they’re ALL 2D)–it doesn’t matter. This is an indisputable fact. One is not necessarily cheaper than the other–also an indisputable fact. That there is now more traditional animation than ever makes your argument curious. More films like Animolisa and Waltz with Bashir will always be made. And will most likely continue to be not profitable or less so.

          It’s not easy to “trick” audiences with either CG or Traditional. No one cares unless they are emotionally invested in the characters and story.

          That said, I could use less “norm of the north” and “sausage party,” and more marture, adult films like “Iron Giant” and “Ratatouille.”

      • Cain

        CG was new and born in to original story telling. So many companies use the formula of the medium in hopes of replicating this effect. Obviously what sells is an entertaining film, not a computer generated one. 2d is still on it’s way to great storytelling in the future, but as CG is still new, it’s taking time to settle. There’s hope for both mediums to live side by side, and there’s a number of stories that deserve to be told in 2d.

    • ea

      Rather than trying to be Pixar or DreamWorks, why don’t these foreign studios try to establish their own style, like Cartoon Saloon?

    • Marielle

      It sounds to me like it’s easier to trick audiences into thinking this is the latest Pixar-style film with CG than with 2D. If you look at the film poster or DVD, it looks like the same art style. People are used to bad CG animation anyway, it’s all over TV. Whether you like it or not, these foreign CG films make more money than some of the most beautiful 2D films.

    • qs2435

      Tangent Animation use Blender3D, an open source/free software, so I think the budget is relatively low than others CG movie.


  • Elsi Pote

    The secret life of Disney pets.

    Guess if Disney didn’t buy all the Pixar know how, all of their cig movies would look like this (no offense).

  • Murray159

    As you all live in the USA, you have no idea of how distribution works in other countries. In my country most of our own films are distributed by big american studios with partnerships with smaller local studios. It doesn’t mean they are in charge of the decisions. Probably, they only get cheaper taxes for distributing local films.

    PS: Sorry. I don’t speak English very well.

  • Marc Hendry

    clearly this wasn’t made for people like me, but I reckon you could do a really beautiful looking CG film for that budget if you weren’t trying to make it look like a $160m Pixar movie

  • Waaaaaay better than rockdog .I can watch this on dvd , with my dog.

  • Andrew Kieswetter

    Looks to me like a mixture of Lady & the Tramp,All Dogs Go To Heaven & The Secret Life of Pets.

  • Mister Twister

    That’s a very mediocre trailer.