-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Princess and the frog a failure?
- Thread starter ILLmaticS0ldier
- Start date
CaptainMichael
Well-Known Member
Because Disney makes/releases the ads. They don't reflect public opinion, fact, anything, and they can say what they want. It is not number 1, and I challenge you find a majority who thinks it's the best since Lion King. There has been a mixed reaction/reception to the film. Hence, it's average.
Ciciwoowoo
Well-Known Member
I have to think that maybe it didn't perform as well as we thought it might simply because it is a princess movie. Those of us with boys won't be taking them to the theater.
That being said, we probably will be purchasing the DVDs. With the price of a movie ($5.00 each for the bargain show) plus cheap popcorn ($5.00) you really are better off waiting the few months it will take and just purchasing the DVD. You can see a movie once for $20 in the theater, or you can see it whenever you'd like for the same price with a little patience.
The economy is kind of bad and therefore our movie experiences have changed in recent years. Our movies are few and far between as a family.
That being said, we probably will be purchasing the DVDs. With the price of a movie ($5.00 each for the bargain show) plus cheap popcorn ($5.00) you really are better off waiting the few months it will take and just purchasing the DVD. You can see a movie once for $20 in the theater, or you can see it whenever you'd like for the same price with a little patience.
The economy is kind of bad and therefore our movie experiences have changed in recent years. Our movies are few and far between as a family.
Ads will spin however necessary.
PatF is the #1 movie ever with a black princess. PatF is the #1 movie ever featuring talking frogs. #1 animated movie that isn't 2 hours long. #1 hand drawn movie of the year. Etc, etc, etc.
It was the #1 movie on it's opening weekend. It's no longer a #1 movie.
It's similar to the ATT/Verizon ads. ATT has the fastest 3G network, but Verizon is the largest. Both companies will say they are the best based on this fact.
I still haven't seen the movie. I want to, but at this point, I think it's going to wait to DVD. I have to drive an hour to get to a movie theatre that plays new releases.
I think that when you consider the domestic box office, you can consider the movie a commercial failure when you compare the budget for the film as well as the advertising budget.
I think that when you consider the domestic box office, you can consider the movie a commercial failure when you compare the budget for the film as well as the advertising budget.
tirian
Well-Known Member
I wish I would have called you out when I saw you in the Test Track queue at Epcot. Ah, the conversations that could have been...
stitch2008
Member
Easier said then done my friend. You may think the film is not as good. But the directors and story department may say its as good as they could make it. And besides, I always think things take time. This was the second animated film under Lasseter. The films will get better as they go forth. Everything I've read on Rapunzel says that the film is looking very good(even though according to one blog it is behind schedule). It looks very beautiful. Pooh should be intresting too. The Snow Queen will be the indicator. That will be the fifth film under John's leadership. Then we will know if WDAS is back on track, or just releasing ok films.
Computer Magic
Well-Known Member
The critics seem to like the movie. I read this from ROGER EBERT. I really like his thought about lifting "Zip-a-dee Doo-Dah". Interesting as some people see the same tie in with Splash Mountain.
_Scar
Active Member
It didn't seem cheap whatsoever. The animation was nothing less than STUNNING- I can't stress this enough. The most visually stunning animated feature I've ever seen- even better than Pixar!
After Mulan is when things went downhill. The ENG was like a Disney Channel made-for-TV movie IMHO.
And they should of done that Zip-a-dee-doo-dah plug. I bet most people don't even know where the song came from! Sad...
dxwwf3
Well-Known Member
Of course I'm talking about the cheapening of the brand before PatF was even released. I haven't seen it yet, but I don't know how you can compare it to a Pixar film visually. Both are animation, but it's apples and oranges to me :shrug:
TENG wasn't the strongest film Disney has ever made, but it is easily one of the funniest and it was solid. Again not a classic, but to me it was fun and enjoyable.
CJR
Well-Known Member
If Disney's last few CGI films are any indication, PatF does NOT need to make its budget back with domestic dollars in order to be a success. Chicken Little, Meet the Robinson's, and Bolt were all written down as successes, not one made their budget back with domestic dollars.
From boxofficemojo:
Chicken Little - Budget: $150 million, Domestic Total: $135.3 million Short: $14.7 million
Meet the Robinson's - Budget: $150 million (assumption), DT: $97.8 million Short: 52.2 million
Bolt - Budget: $150 million, DT: $114 million, Short: $36 million
All three movies were short from making their budgets back in the United States and Canada. While this movie may not have done better, it didn't really do worse in comparison.
PatF - Budget: $105 million, Current Gross: 63.7 million, Short: 41.3 million
It's hard to compare it to the movies of the 90's because the box office was different then. There weren't three movies being released on average each weekend. DVD also didn't exist then and VHS was never had as huge of a market as DVD does today. However, comparing it to the last three Disney releases it's set to place second in domestic success subtracting the budget.
Another thing, as I said in a previous post, is that it's doing far better than Chicken Little, Meet the Robinson's, and Bolt in merchandise sales.
So, it's really just as successful as Disney's (non-Pixar) CG films. Actually given the merchandise sales and the likely hood of a decent international turnout, I'm going to say that it stands the chance of being more profitable than all three of Disney's CG films.
If Disney shuts down their 2D animation, they might as well shut down their CG animation as well. It really doesn't do better vs. the budget.
From boxofficemojo:
Chicken Little - Budget: $150 million, Domestic Total: $135.3 million Short: $14.7 million
Meet the Robinson's - Budget: $150 million (assumption), DT: $97.8 million Short: 52.2 million
Bolt - Budget: $150 million, DT: $114 million, Short: $36 million
All three movies were short from making their budgets back in the United States and Canada. While this movie may not have done better, it didn't really do worse in comparison.
PatF - Budget: $105 million, Current Gross: 63.7 million, Short: 41.3 million
It's hard to compare it to the movies of the 90's because the box office was different then. There weren't three movies being released on average each weekend. DVD also didn't exist then and VHS was never had as huge of a market as DVD does today. However, comparing it to the last three Disney releases it's set to place second in domestic success subtracting the budget.
Another thing, as I said in a previous post, is that it's doing far better than Chicken Little, Meet the Robinson's, and Bolt in merchandise sales.
So, it's really just as successful as Disney's (non-Pixar) CG films. Actually given the merchandise sales and the likely hood of a decent international turnout, I'm going to say that it stands the chance of being more profitable than all three of Disney's CG films.
If Disney shuts down their 2D animation, they might as well shut down their CG animation as well. It really doesn't do better vs. the budget.
t3techcom18
Well-Known Member
Yikes....as a fellow Disney fan and also a big movie buff (and one who wants to get into the film industry later in life), I'm somewhat shocked and puzzled at people's reactions here.
Lots of you are defending it, saying $65 million dollars as a total gross is nothing short of a success. Sadly enough folks, when it comes to the film industry....if the film does that amount in 3 days, 5, even a week, then yes, it is a total and complete success; even those films who were frontloaded like New Moon (front-loaded means success in the first weekend/week, but doesn't have staying power), having accertained that amount of money are considered a success.
A film that makes that amount of money in five WEEKS....Yeah. That's not a good sign. When you guys say it has 'legs', that's not what it means. By film gross, having legs means staying power throughout the BO, not so much after it's been released on DVD. Will it have that life after the BO on DVD and such? Yeah, definitely; but I don't think it will be as huge as others will think it will be. With the marketing team that's been pushing this since the announcement came of an African-American princess was there, it really is a bit of a failure. Why a bit? Only because while it manages to say, yes, there is an interest for hand-drawn animation and might secure it's future, the film itself did not stand on its own legs at the BO. Sure, the Merch can be selling good and can even secure a sequel (ie, Cars 2), in the end, it can't be JUST Merch. It doesn't need to match it's budget either, but considering the hype and marketing that was there for PATF that WASN'T there for Bolt or Meet the Robinsons or Chicken Little...it says volumes. Chicken Little was a very short success because of the visuals but the film itself was panned; Robinsons was just not appealing to people and those who saw it thought of it as being a mixed bag; Bolt did have pretty good reviews and word of mouth but was regarded as a children's/family film by the masses.
These are the factors I think made the film have not as huge a gross it might've had:
1) Timing. Looking at it retrospectively, sure, Christmas Carol's upped opening date made sense for the Mouse House to go and collect money over the season as it had staying power for a long while, PLUS, JHM mentioned in an article how they want to do to Christmas Carol the same WB did to Polar Express for a few years, to re-release it each year or so for a few years. Sure, no one would've expected to see there was a giant rise in attendance this holiday season, but put together with that, how Avatar has been doing, how Sherlock Holmes and Alvin (ew) has been doing...and this is the big release that's made the least....it sure spells trouble.
The rest of the factors are much less complicated:
2) Targeted only to girls/families with girls. Young boys who were Disney fans used to go films like this still for the male characters involved. Since PATF doesn't have a particular stand-out male character (ie, John Smith, Beast), it would've turned off boys of any age.
3) The trailers/spots didn't do much to the film's advantage. Sure, diehard Disney geeks like us and animations fans love seeing the return of hand-drawn animation; but none of the trailers nor the spots really made sense in what the story was about. I couldn't help but wonder after each time I saw a commercial how awesome it looked visually, but both in humor that looked kiddy-fied and forced and no preview of the story, it made me go, "Eh, looks nice, but doesn't look amazing." Even the music was sort of ho-hum to me just from the previews and attending the Showboat Jubilee at the MK. Sounded nice...but that's all it was. Nice. No resonating factors, nothing that tugged at your heart strings, nothing even really that fun, just...nice.
4) The voodoo factor. Someone else here mentioned that, and while I would've said before how that was a stupid reason, it actually makes sense. With more and more families and people becoming PC these days, it (unfortunately) makes sense how, if they see that, it would be a turn-off. Even I did a double-take when I saw the villain was a voodoo priest, but mostly because I was asking how did a voodoo priest and New Orleans combine (I know, the whole black magic in the bayou, but still...in a Disney princess tale? Slightly odd combo.).
5) Mix of genres. You had the princess story, the musical, the kids movie, all in one. Many people don't really care about that combo anymore or are very picky with those genres unless they're into them. People just aren't openminded as they used to be.
6) The reviews. The consensus at Rotten Tomatoes says this with a score of 83%, and they're spot-on with people's mind 3/4 of the time:
What most critics and people were saying that yes, this is a good start to get back into the animation frame of mind and had a solid and nice story, but it wasn't particulary mind-blowing or anything to run to the theater for and definitely not a Disney classic. Most people were saying that as well.
7) Lastly, as much as I hate to say this, the race card. There were still people who thought she wasn't "African-American enough", while others say it did do justice. With this, you have so many different opinions clashing together. It's unfortunate, but alas tis true.
In the end, in my opinion, I think Disney put WAY too many eggs in one basket that they either didn't know how or was out of their control.
Lots of you are defending it, saying $65 million dollars as a total gross is nothing short of a success. Sadly enough folks, when it comes to the film industry....if the film does that amount in 3 days, 5, even a week, then yes, it is a total and complete success; even those films who were frontloaded like New Moon (front-loaded means success in the first weekend/week, but doesn't have staying power), having accertained that amount of money are considered a success.
A film that makes that amount of money in five WEEKS....Yeah. That's not a good sign. When you guys say it has 'legs', that's not what it means. By film gross, having legs means staying power throughout the BO, not so much after it's been released on DVD. Will it have that life after the BO on DVD and such? Yeah, definitely; but I don't think it will be as huge as others will think it will be. With the marketing team that's been pushing this since the announcement came of an African-American princess was there, it really is a bit of a failure. Why a bit? Only because while it manages to say, yes, there is an interest for hand-drawn animation and might secure it's future, the film itself did not stand on its own legs at the BO. Sure, the Merch can be selling good and can even secure a sequel (ie, Cars 2), in the end, it can't be JUST Merch. It doesn't need to match it's budget either, but considering the hype and marketing that was there for PATF that WASN'T there for Bolt or Meet the Robinsons or Chicken Little...it says volumes. Chicken Little was a very short success because of the visuals but the film itself was panned; Robinsons was just not appealing to people and those who saw it thought of it as being a mixed bag; Bolt did have pretty good reviews and word of mouth but was regarded as a children's/family film by the masses.
These are the factors I think made the film have not as huge a gross it might've had:
1) Timing. Looking at it retrospectively, sure, Christmas Carol's upped opening date made sense for the Mouse House to go and collect money over the season as it had staying power for a long while, PLUS, JHM mentioned in an article how they want to do to Christmas Carol the same WB did to Polar Express for a few years, to re-release it each year or so for a few years. Sure, no one would've expected to see there was a giant rise in attendance this holiday season, but put together with that, how Avatar has been doing, how Sherlock Holmes and Alvin (ew) has been doing...and this is the big release that's made the least....it sure spells trouble.
The rest of the factors are much less complicated:
2) Targeted only to girls/families with girls. Young boys who were Disney fans used to go films like this still for the male characters involved. Since PATF doesn't have a particular stand-out male character (ie, John Smith, Beast), it would've turned off boys of any age.
3) The trailers/spots didn't do much to the film's advantage. Sure, diehard Disney geeks like us and animations fans love seeing the return of hand-drawn animation; but none of the trailers nor the spots really made sense in what the story was about. I couldn't help but wonder after each time I saw a commercial how awesome it looked visually, but both in humor that looked kiddy-fied and forced and no preview of the story, it made me go, "Eh, looks nice, but doesn't look amazing." Even the music was sort of ho-hum to me just from the previews and attending the Showboat Jubilee at the MK. Sounded nice...but that's all it was. Nice. No resonating factors, nothing that tugged at your heart strings, nothing even really that fun, just...nice.
4) The voodoo factor. Someone else here mentioned that, and while I would've said before how that was a stupid reason, it actually makes sense. With more and more families and people becoming PC these days, it (unfortunately) makes sense how, if they see that, it would be a turn-off. Even I did a double-take when I saw the villain was a voodoo priest, but mostly because I was asking how did a voodoo priest and New Orleans combine (I know, the whole black magic in the bayou, but still...in a Disney princess tale? Slightly odd combo.).
5) Mix of genres. You had the princess story, the musical, the kids movie, all in one. Many people don't really care about that combo anymore or are very picky with those genres unless they're into them. People just aren't openminded as they used to be.
6) The reviews. The consensus at Rotten Tomatoes says this with a score of 83%, and they're spot-on with people's mind 3/4 of the time:
What most critics and people were saying that yes, this is a good start to get back into the animation frame of mind and had a solid and nice story, but it wasn't particulary mind-blowing or anything to run to the theater for and definitely not a Disney classic. Most people were saying that as well.
7) Lastly, as much as I hate to say this, the race card. There were still people who thought she wasn't "African-American enough", while others say it did do justice. With this, you have so many different opinions clashing together. It's unfortunate, but alas tis true.
In the end, in my opinion, I think Disney put WAY too many eggs in one basket that they either didn't know how or was out of their control.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
There's that new math again! $63 million is 60% of $105, not 70%. Also this movie has been released for 3 weekends now plus a previous limited engagement, not 2.
WDWFigment summed this topic up best. The performance in relation to the hype is big. I don't care what Bolt or Meet the Robinsons did. Those films didn't have thier own Disney Parks show, they didn't put clips of the "reniassance" films in thier trailers, they didn't have the Disney Princess brand for a tie in and they didn't have custom teaser trailers released 2 years before they actually arrived in theatres or thier own ABC TV special to make a point about how they were an extension of the great Disney classics.
I'll also laugh at the "movie theatre experiences are so expansive" comments because in reality if the public wants to see a movie in theatres, they will. The did with Transformers 2, New Moon, Alvin 2, Avatar, Sherlock Holmes, Up and so forth.
WDWFigment summed this topic up best. The performance in relation to the hype is big. I don't care what Bolt or Meet the Robinsons did. Those films didn't have thier own Disney Parks show, they didn't put clips of the "reniassance" films in thier trailers, they didn't have the Disney Princess brand for a tie in and they didn't have custom teaser trailers released 2 years before they actually arrived in theatres or thier own ABC TV special to make a point about how they were an extension of the great Disney classics.
I'll also laugh at the "movie theatre experiences are so expansive" comments because in reality if the public wants to see a movie in theatres, they will. The did with Transformers 2, New Moon, Alvin 2, Avatar, Sherlock Holmes, Up and so forth.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
It failed if they had expectations of a $200 million domestic box office - that's not gonna happen. However determining what Disney's expectations for this movie are somewhat difficult. Little Mermaid only did $111 million total domestic sales (multiple releases) and Beauty and the Beast did $171 million total in domestic sales. Now I expect Princess and the Frog to top $100 million eventually, but if it doesn't, but receives critical acclaim (like it has) it should result in the movie being deemed a success.
The princess line is profitable outside of box office numbers. Where the movie lacks the appeal to the male demographic, they will recoup the difference in merchandise sales in the form of princess dresses and the like.
The princess line is profitable outside of box office numbers. Where the movie lacks the appeal to the male demographic, they will recoup the difference in merchandise sales in the form of princess dresses and the like.
t3techcom18
Well-Known Member
kangaand2roos
Member
I have a 3 year old daughter and 6 year old son and went to see the movie again today. It is my daughter and I's second time and my sons first time. We went opening day and there were not many people there at all but today when we went there were many people. I have to agree with the posters that have mentioned that Disney might have made a bad choice with the title of the movie. Yes, it's a movie with a princess, but the vast majority of the movie, it's not a typical "princess movie". It's a more of a Disney animal movie. I didn't make my son go the first time because I thought it was a typical princess movie. But after I saw it, I knew he would like it. So I took him with us this time, much to his dislike initially, but he ended up loving it. I do think if I had 2 two boys I would have just waited and got the DVD for the collection and skipped the theater because with a title like The Princess and the Frog, of course you are going to think it's a movie about a princess. Even my husband said it wasn't what he thought it was going to be and he was pleasantly surprised.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Thank you, someone else speaks with reason what I wholly summed up! :wave:
I didn't even see you post until after I finished (wasn't there when I clicked "reply") but if it makes you happy to see someone agree with you, who am I to stop your fun?
_Scar
Active Member
I agree. The title is nice and all but it's a total turn off for a guy. Luckily, I knew the movie would entice me since most of the leading characters are male (and I have a nephew who loves Dis movies ) , but the title suggests otherwise. They should of stuck with "The Frog Prince".
Movies like-
The Lion King
Aladdin
Beauty and the Beast
101 Dalamations
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
are movies I'd go see and wouldn't feel as awkward at.
Just a guy's opinion.
) , but the title suggests otherwise. They should of stuck with "The Frog Prince".Movies like-
The Lion King
Aladdin
Beauty and the Beast
101 Dalamations
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
are movies I'd go see and wouldn't feel as awkward at.
Just a guy's opinion.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
Good point, and good post. Why should hand-drawn be expected to "justify" its continuation by producing smash hits when nothing from Disney animation has met that bar for ages?
Disney has been riding Pixar and Pirates for years. PatF has been a modest hit and a nice change of pace. I hope we'll see more hand-drawn pictures, and I'd bet we will.