Princess and the frog a failure?

[ILLmaticS0ldier]

Oh look, PatF had the biggest jump in ticket sales on Tuesday for movies in wide release after posting the smallest drop on Monday. It is now well over the 70 million mark with 5 days left in the Christmas break. Might want to recalibrate your figures.

Proof....

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2009-12-29&p=.htm


Again, Disney knew this was a bit of a niche film but it is holding up fairly well. I am very confident my prediction of going over 100 million in the US is accurate. Now another prediction. It will surpass the Lilo and Stitch box office worldwide total.

As much as I love disney don't defend it!!!! The movie has failed to meet expectations!!!!

 

[jt04]

As much as I love disney don't defend it!!!! The movie has failed to meet expectations!!!!

I quite clearly said that I was sure it hadn't made what they hoped......so far. That said, by all reports it is of the quality we are all demanding from Disney. So for that reason I will defend it! It is NOT Disney's fault it has not been a bigger hit. But as we know, "quality will out"! And quality is the reason this film will have legs. That is why the crowds are growing and not shrinking so far.

Stay tuned so you can learn that lesson well.

 

[xdan0920]

I quite clearly said that I was sure it hadn't made what they hoped......so far. That said, by all reports it is of the quality we are all demanding from Disney. So for that reason I will defend it! It is NOT Disney's fault it has not been a bigger hit. But as we know, "quality will out"! And quality is the reason this film will have legs. That is why the crowds are growing and not shrinking so far.

Stay tuned so you can learn that lesson well.

You could not be more wrong. I have yet to see the film, so I can not speak to the quality. I can however speak to the marketing of it. This film's marketing was aimed squarely at little girls. There is no escaping that fact. If you only go after one part of the marketplace, odds are you will only get on part of the market. Disney made a huge mistake in aiming only at the little girl market.

Of course the movie is doing well this week. If it was not, then it would be an absolute bomb. The problem is, after this weekend the run is over. Kids go back to school, and the BO dries up.

 

[jt04]

You could not be more wrong. I have yet to see the film, so I can not speak to the quality. I can however speak to the marketing of it. This film's marketing was aimed squarely at little girls. There is no escaping that fact. If you only go after one part of the marketplace, odds are you will only get on part of the market. Disney made a huge mistake in aiming only at the little girl market.

Of course the movie is doing well this week. If it was not, then it would be an absolute bomb. The problem is, after this weekend the run is over. Kids go back to school, and the BO dries up.

It will easily pass many of Disney's modern hand drawn animated G rated movies, including Little Mermaid, at the domestic box office. I personally believe it will pass the 300 million mark globally. Hardly a failure. Then of course there are DVD's, PPV, merchandising, spin-offs etc. I wonder how many people said Little Mermaid was a failure during it's original release? And where are they now? :shrug:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

It will easily pass many of Disney's modern hand drawn animated G rated movies, including Little Mermaid, at the domestic box office.

You can't compare the raw take of a movie released 20 years ago to P&F. Ticket prices have almost doubled since 1989.

 

[krankenstein]

Adjusted to 2005 dollars, TLM made $180 Million at the domestic box office. It's probably a little bit different now. PatF still appears to be $100 million off that, but it still has sometime.

Here is the top 10 animated films adjusted for inflation:

Animated Movie Company Total
1) The Jungle Book (1967) Walt Disney $598.5 Million
2) Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs (1937) Walt Disney $587.5 Million
3) 101 Dalmations (1961) Walt Disney $567.0 Million
4) Fantasia (1940) Walt Disney $447.6 Million
5) The Lion King (1994) Walt Disney $403.4 Million
6) Sleeping Beauty (1959) Walt Disney $391.7 Million
7) Bambi (1942) Walt Disney $379.5 Million
8) Pinocchio (1940) Walt Disney $363.3 Million
9) Lady and the Tramp (1955) Walt Disney $300.4 Million
10) Aladdin (1992) Walt Disney $282.3 Million

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Adjusted to 2005 dollars, TLM made $180 Million at the domestic box office. It's probably a little bit different now.

I get $201 million using 2009 ticket prices.

 

[krankenstein]

I get $201 million using 2009 ticket prices.

I guess that is around $120 million short than. :lol:

 

[jt04]

I guess that is around $120 million short than. :lol:

Apples/Oranges. Everything has changes in the last 20 years. Millions of people have abandoned the cineplexes for their home theaters so those are no longer valid comparissons. You really have to look at the bigger picture including the revolution in global box office take. It's way to early to pass judgement on the movies long term success or failure.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Millions of people have abandoned the cineplexes for their home theaters so those are no longer valid comparissons.

That's a good point.

However, you were trying to make exactly that comparison a few posts ago with TLM reference.

I want this movie to succeed as much as you do, but using "moving target" arguments doesn't help its cause. Hopefully we'll see another good showing from Wednesday.

 

[krankenstein]

Apples/Oranges. Everything has changes in the last 20 years. Millions of people have abandoned the cineplexes for their home theaters so those are no longer valid comparissons. You really have to look at the bigger picture including the revolution in global box office take. It's way to early to pass judgement on the movies long term success or failure.

I never said it was a failure. As a matter of fact, I have previously said that it is a success. It will only continue to make make money. Once they have covered the initial cost (they are close to, if they have not already surpassed it), it will be a profitable venture and thusly a success. :wave:

 

[jt04]

That's a good point.

However, you were trying to make exactly that comparison a few posts ago with TLM reference.

I want this movie to succeed as much as you do, but using "moving target" arguments doesn't help its cause. Hopefully we'll see another good showing from Wednesday.

I hear what you are saying. This is how I look at it. If it is in the area of previous BO for hand drawn, then the comparrisons are valid even when you factor in inflation. So 100 million today is not the same as it was 20 years ago but the industry is truly undergoing a revolution. I'm one of those people that used to see movies regularly but I have quit that for the home theater PPV option. That is the future and that will be where this movie makes it's profit.

I think studios are happy if they get back their investment (break even) through ticket sales. Then they make money through other revenue streams. Seems to be a valid business model.

Edit: Another 3.3 million on Wednesday for a total of about 73.5 million. It should be approaching 85 million by the end of the holiday period. It should break the 100 million mark by mid January. Of course that is just in the US and Canada. Overseas Box office totals won't be available for quite some time.

 

[Computer Magic]

I think studios are happy if they get back their investment (break even) through ticket sales. Then they make money through other revenue streams. Seems to be a valid business model.

.

good point. Also a good point is quality wins out. PaF is getting good reviews so those that dismissed it as another bad 2d films are rethinking not seeing it. Some have already show the big ticket movies Avatar, New Moon, etc and now are sayting hey I'm hearing good things about PaF.

I hold to my earlier post, it will top 100 million in US and be a big enough hit to release more 2d films.

 

[CJR]

Adjusted to 2005 dollars, TLM made $180 Million at the domestic box office. It's probably a little bit different now. PatF still appears to be $100 million off that, but it still has sometime.

Here is the top 10 animated films adjusted for inflation:

Animated Movie Company Total
1) The Jungle Book (1967) Walt Disney $598.5 Million
2) Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs (1937) Walt Disney $587.5 Million
3) 101 Dalmations (1961) Walt Disney $567.0 Million
4) Fantasia (1940) Walt Disney $447.6 Million
5) The Lion King (1994) Walt Disney $403.4 Million
6) Sleeping Beauty (1959) Walt Disney $391.7 Million
7) Bambi (1942) Walt Disney $379.5 Million
8) Pinocchio (1940) Walt Disney $363.3 Million
9) Lady and the Tramp (1955) Walt Disney $300.4 Million
10) Aladdin (1992) Walt Disney $282.3 Million

I don't like how the adjusted for inflation stuff is done. It's obvious, if The Little Mermaid was released today that it wouldn't make that much money. None of those movies would. Attendance for ALL movies is down from the early 1990's. DVD wasn't there and the whole home theater experience was downplayed back then.

That's why it's ok to compare the numbers. TLM did not make $180 million at the box office (it made $84.3 million) and probably would not make $180 million today. So adjusting it for inflation is silly. Yes, it had more in attendance, but it DID NOT make more.

People also get this confused, places like box officemojo adjust for inflation based on average theater prices, not the actual inflation rate. Theater prices rose at a much great rate than the actual dollar. I'm not saying the value of the dollar didn't increase, but it didn't double and is actually going down as theater prices continue to rise. All adjusting for inflation does is show that older movies had higher attendance, and in most cases anything from the 1990's will have higher attendance.

At the end of the day, TLM made $84.3 in its original box office run. That's what it made and it will always have that. So while PatF might have a lower attendance at the box office, its gross will indeed pass TLM's original gross, which is an achievement.

It's very difficult to compare the two because it's hard to say what TLM would make today, but if you really think about it, Disney probably doesn't care how many people see the movie as they do on how much they actually make off of that movie. With that said, TLM would still make more due to its lower budget. For quoting box office numbers though, all adjusting for inflation does is show attendance figures, not how much TLM would actually make today.

Haha, didn't expect to rant like that, just trying to point out that PatF does NOT need to reach $180 million nor was it ever expected. I think Disney just wants it to do on par with its CG movies, which it IS doing. Why should PatF be held to any higher expectations? If the CG movies (which cost more) can't make $150 million, why should PatF be expected to?

 

[Thrill Seeker]

Princess and the Frog was a very good film that is an unfortunate victim of poor release timing. Disney underestimated Avatar and that cost them big time. This was the movie Disney hoped would renew the public's interest in traditional 2-D films. Unfortunately, a big budget 3-D sci-fi movie had to come out a week later and steal the interest away. If PatF was released in November, maybe a week after New Moon, it would have done much better in the Box Office.

As it stands, it won't be a failure because of merch sales and it will be a big hit on DVD/Blu-Ray like most Disney films. Personally I thought it should have done a lot better in the box office, but I guess that won't happen.

If you want to support the movie, buy a ticket and see it again. I'm half tempted to...

 

[Wilt Dasney]

That's why it's ok to compare the numbers.

Sorry to boil a really smart post down to one sentence, but I disagree with this conclusion.

The argument, best I can tell, is that earlier releases had a built-in advantage by virtue of a less fractured viewing public and tickets that were relatively "cheaper" in relation to buying power, so adjusting their takes for inflation and saying "here's what they made in 2009 dollars" is unfair. I can buy that.

I don't buy that that leads to the conclusion (which you seem to reach above) that you can just put a movie out today up against the unadjusted gross of a movie from the past and say you're making any kind of meaningful comparison (i.e., that P&F will prove an equal box office hit to TLM by making another $40 million).

Just like earlier films had the built-in advantages you outlined, current films will clearly benefit from higher ticket prices. The farther back you go in time, the more absurd straight-number comparisons will become.

Just using the fact that more people are watching DVDs and tickets cost more vs. the dollar isn't enough to justify that kind of lazy comparison, because the truth is none of us have the mathematical rigor to determine whether the struggles current films face equal or outweigh the lower ticket prices of yesteryear.

Basically, if we can't adjust for inflation because the math isn't precise enough, and we can't use estimates of tickets sold because theaters in general attract smaller audiences in the digital age, then we definitely can't just compare the unadjusted gross and say that tells us anything worth knowing. That's a much less rigorous method than the ones being criticized here.

So the only meaningful conclusion is that it's really pointless to compare movies across eras at all. It's not just apples and oranges; it's apples and cheeseburgers.

 

[dxwwf3]

I don't know how you can't look at adjusted for inflation. That makes absolutely no sense to me. You might not put total faith into the exact numbers, but it's obvious that inflation does tell you something. If TLM was released with today's ticket prices, there is no doubt it would have made a lot more than what PatF will end up with.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I don't know how you can't look at adjusted for inflation. That makes absolutely no sense to me. You might not put total faith into the exact numbers, but it's obvious that inflation does tell you something. If TLM was released with today's ticket prices, there is no doubt it would have made a lot more than what PatF will end up with.

I agree. A film like Mermaid might not make as much as a purely adjusted figure suggests, but it seems reasonable to assume its take would be larger today than in 1989. How much larger is the question we can't answer.

 

[TURKEY]

Anyone know what the advertising budget was for this movie?

When you take that into account, it might not break even.

 

[Computer Magic]

I agree. A film like Mermaid might not make as much as a purely adjusted figure suggests, but it seems reasonable to assume its take would be larger today than in 1989. How much larger is the question we can't answer.

I don't think Mermaid would have the same number of tickets sold today like 1989. For me to see a movie and not wait for DVD or cable means my home theater wouldn't give me the same viewing. In 1989 I would see Mermaid at the movies because movies took forever to get to cable and/or home VHS. Today home movies are released quickly after the last showing, can be watched on huge 64 inch widescreens HDTV, and surround sound . Less incentive for me to go to the movies unless the movie is IMAX 3d or the graphic deserve that large movie screen. Which is why I believe you have to account for more then what the movie brings in a the theater.

Anyone know what the advertising budget was for this movie?

When you take that into account, it might not break even.

Good question. I assumed it was included in the cost of making the movie, but I could be wrong.