Anyone think it would be worth cutting Cinderella and Rapunzel down to one room then basically have 3 friends on Anna and Elsa meeting at once in the Fairy tale Hall?
In case you missed it, the sequel is off the table for the time being.
http://screencrush.com/frozen-2-disney/
Past comments make it clear that to Iger a franchise is multiple films.I think the confusion is in the word "Franchise" Iger used this word when taking about Frozen's success in an interview and people assumed he meant more movies but if you read this quote further he started talking about theme park attractions, Broadway and merchandise he never said anything about more movies.
theatrical sequel made by the actual walt disney animation studios rather than toon studios, bit of a huge difference there.Yeah, I try not to remember "Return to Neverland" or "Jungle Book 2" either.
(And that's assuming "Sequel" = "Feature", and not that five-minute Tangled short.)
theatrical sequel made by the actual walt disney animation studios rather than toon studios, bit of a huge difference there.
Hey there! Seems like you are back on your old schedule. If pixar can do an entire successful franchise out of toy story (Each film got about a 99 percent and up on rotten tomatoes but sequels are always bad? Right?) I wouldn't see how any ceo is going to sit on the highest grossing animated film and not try and milk it with more content. In case you didn't read not once did I say I was 100 percent behind the idea, but rather I know that they are going to do it. However if they could get the original creative team to come back to do it I would see that as a good sign that at least some care is being given to it, unlike the cheapquels disney toon studio is known for making.Yeah, the real one doesn't make them.
("But, what about Rescuers Down Under?"
That was when the Eisner era was determined to sequelize an "old" hit to establish their succession to the crown, and back then, they didn't know which movies were open-ended enough to sequelize, apart from Fantasia, Rescuers, and that Mary Poppins sequel that had been talked about forever.
"Well, Iger said he wanted Cars 2!"
Yeah, because every critic was dog piling on Cars 1 when it came out, after Disney's gaffe of predicting that Cars would "outgross Nemo", and with the Eisner vs. Pixar war heating up, the press was bloodthirstily waiting for the plot to thicken and Pixar have its first flop. When the weekend didn't pan out like they hoped, the press tried to spin it as a disaster, despite the fact that it'd been popular with audiences. Although Pixar was doing the ex-Circle 7 sequels, Iger wanted a Cars 2, in a word, to the reporters off, and show that the marketing was still actually popular with audiences, box-office analyzing be darned.)
And you want a Frozen sequel, what, because it would be "neato" with the movie being popular, 'n stuff?
It's all very interesting.
Point being, a meet and greet handles very few people.
There's a wait time as soon as the park opens and people swarm to Fairy Tale Hall. Which is every day right now....
You shouldn't do a sequel just because, but I don't understand the thinking that everything movie-worthy about "x" characters has to be done in a single shot. Everyone who doesn't want sequels quotes, "You can't top pigs with pigs", but didn't Walt keep going back to Mickey & Donald to headline shorts over and over and over again?Hey there! Seems like you are back on your old schedule. If pixar can do an entire successful franchise out of toy story (Each film got about a 99 percent and up on rotten tomatoes but sequels are always bad? Right?) I wouldn't see how any ceo is going to sit on the highest grossing animated film and not try and milk it with more content. In case you didn't read not once did I say I was 100 percent behind the idea, but rather I know that they are going to do it. However if they could get the original creative team to come back to do it I would see that as a good sign that at least some care is being given to it, unlike the cheapquels disney toon studio is known for making.
You shouldn't do a sequel just because, but I don't understand the thinking that everything movie-worthy about "x" characters has to be done in a single shot. Everyone who doesn't want sequels quotes, "You can't top pigs with pigs", but didn't Walt keep going back to Mickey & Donald to headline shorts over and over and over again?
You shouldn't do a sequel just because, but I don't understand the thinking that everything movie-worthy about "x" characters has to be done in a single shot. Everyone who doesn't want sequels quotes, "You can't top pigs with pigs", but didn't Walt keep going back to Mickey & Donald to headline shorts over and over and over again?
Some stories lend themselves to sequels, some don't IMO. I am not sure Frozen does.
Okay, I'm just throwing this out here: if there is a "Frozen" sequel, why not make it about Anna and HER magical powers? Look, her sister has them (which, by the way, in a brilliant example of storytelling was never explained), so why shouldn't she?
Because genetics and inherited traits don't necessarily work that way?
And yes, it WAS EXPLAINED- She. Was. Born. With. Them. When Disney bought Marvel, they also bought the mutant superpower origin.
Honestly, given that you made up your mind about the movie well before it's release, even if they did do an full on origin, nothing they came up with would have satisfied you in the least.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.