Princess and the frog a failure?

[imagineer boy]

Disney is falling. They've clearly lost the hold of animated blockbusters and this film hasn't given back the company it's former glory.

Not quite, but its certainly a step in the right direction. It may be a small step, but a step none-the-less.

Like I said before, PatF is more comparable to Oliver and Company. Not yet the beginning of the new renaissance, but a good predecessor. Hopefully this means a new Little Mermaid-type hit is just around the corner.

 

[CJR]

Disney is falling. They've clearly lost the hold of animated blockbusters and this film hasn't given back the company it's former glory.

That's what I have been getting at. This film, while it didn't defy the odds, has only been a part of a disappointing trend at Disney. Chicken Little had a chance to change Disney's negative reputation. It opened big for a Disney film and then fell (I blame the story). After Chicken Little all of the openings have been lower. For example, I thought Meet the Robinsons was a better movie than Chicken Little, but it didn't make close to what Chicken Little made and I think it's because Chicken Little hurt the reputation for Disney's non-Pixar branded animated films. Keep in mind, the public attitude toward Disney was bad before Chicken Little due to Home on the Range.

Animaniac, I misunderstood you about the three times thing. I do agree with you there.

Also, I do agree with you about Disney wanting more money than the money it's making from merch. I was just saying that it's a strong point for the franchise. It's probably the best selling animated film since Lilo & Stitch in merchandise sales. That's definitely a plus. Still, I'm sure they hope to make more than that and they still can if PatF does well worldwide. So far, it doesn't seem to be doing bad. We'll really find that out after it opens in the UK.

If it can hit $100 million in the US, it is possible that it could get $150-$200 million more worldwide since most movies do make more money overseas. I don't imagine it getting less money overseas, that's for sure.

Not quite, but its certainly a step in the right direction. It may be a small step, but a step none-the-less.

Like I said before, PatF is more comparable to Oliver and Company. Not yet the beginning of the new renaissance, but a good predecessor. Hopefully this means a new Little Mermaid-type hit is just around the corner.

I agree with you. I'm looking at Rapunzel and I'm seeing a promising film next year. PatF lacked in the story a little bit and in the music. Rapunzel has a promising cast all around it and is going to be innovative in its design.

Also, PatF has sparked positive conversation aside from its box office about Disney. I think this positivity could help boost Rapunzel's performance. Not to mention, I think it will have a broader demographic.

I know I'm excited for Rapunzel. I just wish they would bump the release up a couple weeks and do what they did with Bolt. It should be wide at Thanksgiving, not two weeks after. They couldn't do that with PatF because of The Christmas Carol, but I'm not seeing the problem next year.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I thought Meet the Robinsons was a better movie than Chicken Little, but it didn't make close to what Chicken Little made and I think it's because Chicken Little hurt the reputation for Disney's non-Pixar branded animated films.

It's hard for me to believe that public awareness of branding is strong enough that most people (average people, not cinema nuts) can differentiate a Pixar film from a Disney CGI movie, and decide whether or not to go based purely on the brand. Most people don't even seem to know that Disneyland isn't in Florida. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Computer Magic]

It's hard for me to believe that public awareness of branding is strong enough that most people (average people, not cinema nuts) can differentiate a Pixar film from a Disney CGI movie, and decide whether or not to go based purely on the brand. Most people don't even seem to know that Disneyland isn't in Florida. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm not sure the average person can tell between a Pixar, Disney CGI, Dreamwork or any other 3d film maker. Show a panel of people different movies and ask them to name the company that made it.

 

[CJR]

It's hard for me to believe that public awareness of branding is strong enough that most people (average people, not cinema nuts) can differentiate a Pixar film from a Disney CGI movie, and decide whether or not to go based purely on the brand. Most people don't even seem to know that Disneyland isn't in Florida. Maybe I'm wrong.

I understand what you mean, but why is it that Pixar films always seem to open $50 million plus (sometimes in the $60 or $70 million range), but Disney's own movies seem to have trouble making a $30 million opening?

It could be Pixar's films just look better than Disney's. I personally don't think that's always the case, as I thought Bolt was better than Up. Still, Up made more money.

I can only assume it's a Pixar thing.

Off Topic: You are right about the Disneyland in Florida thing. My own mom who has been to both places still calls Magic Kingdom "Disneyland" and it's been over ten years since our first trip there (1998). Sometimes she calls the park "Disneyworld". I don't think she's ever actually called it MK. haha

I'm not sure the average person can tell between a Pixar, Disney CGI, Dreamwork or any other 3d film maker. Show a panel of people different movies and ask them to name the company that made it.

That would make a very interesting study. I think you are right about people really not noticing the difference. I'm in college and we had a "Disney Night". Half of the movies people brought weren't Disney movies. I think it confuses people even more when the Disney-owned ABC aires a Shrek Christmas Special. haha I'm just trying to figure how Pixar movies always seem to do better than the regular Disney movies.

 

[jt04]

Latest...

So it appears the 85 million mark will easily be surpassed this weekend and it will hit the 90 million mark before next weekend. Next weekend will be the real barometer of the movies longer range outlook. It appears now, at least to me, that it will go well beyond the 100 million mark. I'll have a better idea next weekend if it might be like Ratatouille and just keep racking up a respectable number weekend after weekend as Alvin fades into history. I'm quite optimistic.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I understand what you mean, but why is it that Pixar films always seem to open $50 million plus (sometimes in the $60 or $70 million range), but Disney's own movies seem to have trouble making a $30 million opening?

Yeah, Pixar definitely wins at the box office. My own thought on that was that the quality of the films contributes to word of mouth, but that wouldn't really account for big opening weekends.

Eh...maybe it is the brand. Or maybe Pixar characters are just more visually appealing and kids get more excited ahead of time to see Wall-E, Mater, Remy, etc. than anyone in Meet the Robinsons. (I don't even remember the kid's name from that movie, and I enjoyed watching it.)

By way of anecdotal evidence, I remember being in a theater when a Wall-E trailer came on and kids all over the room started buzzing, asking their parents when they could go see it. This was months before the opening. But I'm really just guessing at what the difference might be for Pixar.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Next weekend will be the real barometer of the movies longer range outlook.

Yep, that seems like a fair statement. Once the holidays are over, it'll be sink or swim time.

 

[Disneyfanman]

I'm optimistic as well for 100 M due to its recent trend. At this point it's a good start for the revival of traditional animation. It would, however, have been wonderful to see a higher box office and have it really be the talk of the season. We'll have to leave that role up to Avatar.

 

[jt04]

Yeah, Pixar definitely wins at the box office. My own thought on that was that the quality of the films contributes to word of mouth, but that wouldn't really account for big opening weekends.

Eh...maybe it is the brand. Or maybe Pixar characters are just more visually appealing and kids get more excited ahead of time to see Wall-E, Mater, Remy, etc. than anyone in Meet the Robinsons. (I don't even remember the kid's name from that movie, and I enjoyed watching it.)

By way of anecdotal evidence, I remember being in a theater when a Wall-E trailer came on and kids all over the room started buzzing, asking their parents when they could go see it. This was months before the opening. But I'm really just guessing at what the difference might be for Pixar.

I think it's the medium. And I think that is why Disney lowered expectations for PatF. Face it, anyone under 10 associates CGI animation with great movies. Shrek, Pixar etc, have been their event films. So I think they just associate CGI with quality even if they are not aware of it. And for the most part, I think they associate hand drawn with old fashioned or the lower quality mass produced stuff they see on TV.

That is why the tech they are working on for Rapunzel could be so revolutionary. You get the textures and artistic quality of hand drawn, with the immersion and 3D quality (even in 2D) of CGI.

When you consider all the intangibles PatF faced at the box office, I don't think Disney is as disappointed as some seem to think here.

 

[jt04]

Yep, that seems like a fair statement. Once the holidays are over, it'll be sink or swim time.

I think it has already proven itself. See my comment above. Invictus is an example of a movie sinking. And there are plenty of other recent examples. PatF is going to be just fine.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

But I'm really just guessing at what the difference might be for Pixar.

There is a difference and it's what made Pixar the trusted brand name in quality animated features for the decade.

Not one of their films has ever failed to make several hundreds of millions worldwide, or has a failing grade on RT (with Cars the only one less than 90%). Their track record for success is amazing and critics and the public have taken notice and made them their success. They may not know the brand (I'm guessing they do at this point) but they've made them #1.

I think alot of people have a grudge against Pixar because they've so obviously stolen the crown form the company that for the longest time was considered tops for animation. I don't love everything from Pixar but it's impossible to deny what they've accomplished.

It's a bit sad when a kind of movie so uniquely Disney (the animated fairy tale) can't match or top the competition, but hopefully it'll help the brand in the future. I am very much looking forward to Rapunzel though and despite it begin CGI there seems to be more creativity put into the styling of the film than Frog.

 

[MousDad]

Finally able to drag my youngest son to see the film. My thoughts:

Definitely a valiant attempt to return to the second golden age. In fact, I felt like it was painfully obvious that they were attempting to fill that mold, almost force fill. I don't mean that necessarily in a bad way, but I got the definite impression that they were trying to save face and aplogize for the past decade of films, in a not so subtle way. HOWEVER, there was one angle where they deviated (thank the Maker) - they got rid of the preachiness that so entangled the 90s films.

Two words describe the animation - eye candy. It would almost be worth watching the film once with the sound off, just to enjoy the visuals. Loved the colors. Loved the careful attention to the period, and the details.

Characters were great. Great hero(ine) and supporting cast, great voice talent, right mix of goofy and serious.

As far as the villain, he was entertaining, but still not up to the standards of the classic villains. In fact, I'd put him in the league of Bowler Hat Guy, as a "not so villainous villain." Must be the trend.

My take on the music: the best score Newman has composed, but not the best songs. The score was a masterful portrayal of the sound and feel of the Big Easy. Newman really shines here. The songs were very enjoyable, but I'm not sure they will attain Disney classic status. A song is a Disney classic when you hear it for the first time, and think you already know the song from somewhere before. None were on this level.

But for me, what makes a Disney film truly great is the emotional engagement with the audience. This can't be done without a great story, and we most definitely have that here. In fact, the real story of the film could have been marketed more, rather than the princess-i-ness, IMO.

We get just the right blend of emotions, from deep sadness to silliness to joy and amazement. There are a few moments that provide you with that deep emotional punch that is present in every great Disney film.

I'm going to give this one a very high mark, 8.5 out of 10 on the Disney scale. Thanks John! Hope Bob let's you keep doing what you're doing, even though it didn't bring in $150 M.

 

[jt04]

Finally able to drag my youngest son to see the film. My thoughts:

Definitely a valiant attempt to return to the second golden age. In fact, I felt like it was painfully obvious that they were attempting to fill that mold, almost force fill. I don't mean that necessarily in a bad way, but I got the definite impression that they were trying to save face and aplogize for the past decade of films, in a not so subtle way. HOWEVER, there was one angle where they deviated (thank the Maker) - they got rid of the preachiness that so entangled the 90s films.

Two words describe the animation - eye candy. It would almost be worth watching the film once with the sound off, just to enjoy the visuals. Loved the colors. Loved the careful attention to the period, and the details.

Characters were great. Great hero(ine) and supporting cast, great voice talent, right mix of goofy and serious.

As far as the villain, he was entertaining, but still not up to the standards of the classic villains. In fact, I'd put him in the league of Bowler Hat Guy, as a "not so villainous villain." Must be the trend.

My take on the music: the best score Newman has composed, but not the best songs. The score was a masterful portrayal of the sound and feel of the Big Easy. Newman really shines here. The songs were very enjoyable, but I'm not sure they will attain Disney classic status. A song is a Disney classic when you hear it for the first time, and think you already know the song from somewhere before. None were on this level.

But for me, what makes a Disney film truly great is the emotional engagement with the audience. This can't be done without a great story, and we most definitely have that here. In fact, the real story of the film could have been marketed more, rather than the princess-i-ness, IMO.

We get just the right blend of emotions, from deep sadness to silliness to joy and amazement. There are a few moments that provide you with that deep emotional punch that is present in every great Disney film.

I'm going to give this one a very high mark, 8.5 out of 10 on the Disney scale. Thanks John! Hope Bob let's you keep doing what you're doing, even though it didn't bring in $150 M.

Great review but what did your kid think of it?

 

[CJR]

According to The-Numbers.com, this film has reached $86 million this weekend.

I originally predicted that it would land at about $85 million with Hercules, so IMO, this is great news!

It will definitely hit $90 million before next weekend assuming it can make a couple million more tomorrow and has a very high chance of hitting the $100 million mark.

It would really be nice for it to make its $105 million budget back domestically though since it would be the third post-2000 film to do that. It will be a little tough for that to happen though. As someone else said, we'll have a better idea of what it will end up making after next weekend. I think it will make over $100 million tough, which is a great achievement coming off of Treasure Planet, Brother Bear (which was a success), and Home on the Range.

 

[jt04]

According to The-Numbers.com, this film has reached $86 million this weekend.

I originally predicted that it would land at about $85 million with Hercules, so IMO, this is great news!

It will definitely hit $90 million before next weekend assuming it can make a couple million more tomorrow and has a very high chance of hitting the $100 million mark.

It would really be nice for it to make its $105 million budget back domestically though since it would be the third post-2000 film to do that. It will be a little tough for that to happen though. As someone else said, we'll have a better idea of what it will end up making after next weekend. I think it will make over $100 million tough, which is a great achievement coming off of Treasure Planet, Brother Bear (which was a success), and Home on the Range.

It should be in theaters at least 6 or 8 more weeks. I'm convinced it will hit the 105 mark. If it has real legs it could go as high as 120 or higher but that is being extremely optimistc. Stranger things have happened. It really depends on if it creates some buzz when schools reopen.

 

[Disneyfanman]

113 internationally without the latest update Figure 120 all in through today. I've moved my cheese on it and believe it's going to do OK. I figure that it will hit 110 in the US (more WOULD be great!) and probably another 100 internationally. That means it would about cover it's budget. Other sources of income (You can probably count on 100 million in DVD sales), plus cable, toys etc would all be extra income for Disney. So while it's not the huge hit they wanted, it really does kind of pave the way for more 2-D.

 

[MousDad]

Great review but what did your kid think of it?

lol. He liked it. Didn't even think it was too girly.

 

[jt04]

From screen daily dot com....


"This weekend The Princess And The Frog added $9.5m from 2929 screens in 17 territories for a promising early $45m tally. The animation added $2.9m in Italy from 500 for $12.9m after three weekends and grossed $2.1m in Russia. It opened in Australia on $1m from 250 and added $531,000 from 625 in Mexico for $5.1m after one month."

So it will break the 150 million mark by next weekend.

More results as I get them.

 

[GrumpyFan]

I saw the movie over the weekend with my wife and daughter, and we all thoroughly enjoyed it!

Reading thru some of the comments here and looking at the numbers for this movie has really puzzled me. The consensus seems to be that it is a good movie, and should be worthy of pulling in much higher numbers than it has seen. It's definitely better, IMO, than the Chipmunks Squeakquel. So, the question is, why hasn't it? A few thoughts on that, if I may.

First, I DONT think it has anything to do with the medium. This film is vibrant and rich with great animation and color displays of the good and bad of New Orleans. The average movie goer doesn't know or even care how the film was created, whether it be on a computer or a traditional canvas. They just want to be entertained for 90 or so minutes with a good story, maybe some catchy music and a few catchy lines or scenes they will remember hours or days later. This film comes very, very close in providing some of those catchy elements, but doesn't quite do it like others have. Think about some of your favorite movies from the past, ones that made lots of money, and you'll probably be able to remember one or more things about it that you enjoyed, even now. This film, unfortunately, fails to provide anything like that, at least for me.

I really think marketing failed to promote this in the right way. This is a fun movie, that should appeal to most everybody, not just little girls. I don't know that they did a very good job of promoting it to anybody other than little girls. I base this on the fact that the theater I saw it in, was about 80% or higher female. In my opinion, they could've promoted the prince more as well as Ray and the crocodile. They could've promoted the twisted tale of the girl kissing the frog and then turning into one herself.

Sadly, I think the "color" of the film may have hurt it as well. Unfortunately, and sad for them, but I think some people may have avoided going to see the movie because it's about a little African American girl who turns into a frog and they've closed their mind to being able to enjoy such a story. Perhaps if Disney had used some other big names in the film this could've helped turn the situation around. Perhaps they should've made John Goodman's character, Big Daddy, more prominent or at least advertised his name more.

In the end, I really think the "buzz", or marketing for this film failed, and not the film itself.