Princess and the frog a failure?

GrumpyFan

Well-Known Member
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.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
Update for Monday...

So, only two movies in wide release enjoyed an uptick in box office ticket sales from the previous weekend! And of those two, PatF had, by far, the biggest increase despite a drop in screenings!!!!.....

Proof....

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2010&wknd=01&p=.htm

By the way, EVERY person in Hollywood should be required to see "The Blind Side". Not that it would matter, but that is telling in and of itself.
 

tiaragirl

Well-Known Member
I really enjoyed it.. but it definitely wasn't just a *princess* movie. I agree that it could have been marketed differently.

I'd also like to say that I was really sad the 'Tiana' dress was only in it for a few minutes =( hahah
 

dxwwf3

Well-Known Member
PatF had a better than expected weekend and now looks like it will cross $100 million. It's rare to see a rise in a major studio picture that long after release.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
PatF had a better than expected weekend and now looks like it will cross $100 million. It's rare to see a rise in a major studio picture that long after release.

Better than expected??? Perhaps you have not been reading my posts.

*pats self on back*

:lol:
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
Yes better than expected :). Nobody would expect a film to gain that long after release.

I did. I've been saying the movie had legs for awhile now. What is especially amazing is that it was the only top 10 movie that had fewer screenings and it still increased it's percentage.

I just wonder who the moron was that made the decision to drop the number of screenings. :brick:

Hopefully they will add those screens back this weekend.:shrug:
 

Wilt Dasney

Well-Known Member
I just wonder who the moron was that made the decision to drop the number of screenings. :brick:
Individual theater managers make that decision. They're obligated to carry releases for a certain number of weeks, then decide for themselves whether to keep showing it. That's my understanding, anyway.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
Individual theater managers make that decision. They're obligated to carry releases for a certain number of weeks, then decide for themselves whether to keep showing it. That's my understanding, anyway.

Exactly, it's up to them to decide whether or not a film is worth keeping if enough people are still willing to pay to go see it. New releases come and they need the space because logically a new movie will play to bigger crowds than one that has been out for close to a month now.

Frog was at #7 this weekend, kids went back to school today, etc. does it make sense to keep playing it? Depending upon the number of screens a given theatre has the answer will vary.
 

MousDad

New Member
The managers had it screening at nothing from weekend one. I was extremely surprised at the limited number of shows on its opening weekend. Methinks the theater managers have it out for Disney feature animation.

BTW, when I went last weekend, PatF had 4 slots in 1 theater and the Squeakwel had 16 slots in 2 theaters.
 

Hrudey3032

Well-Known Member
By the way, EVERY person in Hollywood should be required to see "The Blind Side". Not that it would matter, but that is telling in and of itself.

I agree 100% This was a amazing heartfelt movie. I loved it and think the young man playing Michael Oher was phenomanal!
 

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
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.

You are right, this movie was marketed only at little girls. DUMB. If it does prove to have real legs it will be based off word of mouth. Whoever was in charge of marketing this movie should be punched directly in the face.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
You are right, this movie was marketed only at little girls. DUMB. If it does prove to have real legs it will be based off word of mouth. Whoever was in charge of marketing this movie should be punched directly in the face.

I'm leaning your way on the marketing angle. I am disappointed the movie didn't do better yesterday. I thought it could cross the million mark everyday this week. We will be able to tell almost exactly what this movie will make in the US after this weekend. I still think it will cross the 100 million mark with plenty of room to spare. This could be one of those movies that gets a better than expected bump on the weekends. Time will tell.

That said, there are indications it is doing better than expected overseas. And since it has yet to debut in many countries, Disney could still adjust their marketing strategies.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
I agree 100% This was a amazing heartfelt movie. I loved it and think the young man playing Michael Oher was phenomanal!

Yep! This movie proves it's not about big budgets. It's about presenting compelling stories first. That Hollywood continues to turn away from movies that appeal to the mainstream is frustrating. They love to say these movies don't "sell" and then they are continually proven wrong.

I sense a revolution of sorts brewing in the movie making business.:)
 

MousDad

New Member
The drop dead fail or flop number (fiscally) is $114 M, which was Bolt's total from last year. One would have hoped it would have shattered it.

For additional perspective:

PATF (the much heralded return of hand-drawn animation and the formula from the successful second Disney Decade of films) is currently the 6th highest grossing animated feature of the year, $32 M behind the 5th place film Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.

PATF (in it's 8th week) has yet to surpass Bolt, Meet the Robinsons, Chicken Little, Lilo & Stitch and Dinosaur for Disney animated films this decade.

On the bright side, it has beaten The Wild, Home on the Range, Brother Bear and Atlantis for Disney films this decade.

The final tally for G-Force (the likes of which got D. Cook's throat slashed by Bob) was $119 M.

The current tally for A Christmas Carol (a movie that somehow was forgotten in the press, and most people with small kids didn't bother to go see) was $137 M.

The final tally for Up (the #4 movie of the year and the only Walt Disney Company film in the top 15) was $293 M.
 

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
When you look at it like that, it is very obviously a failure. Its not an epic water world kind of failure. But nonetheless, it is a failure. It has not been able to beat or even match very marginal disney films.

I suppose we should just be happy it did not completely tank, otherwise we might be looking at another long hiatus between hand drawn films.
 

CJR

Well-Known Member
It was a failure in that it wasn't a huge success. However, none of the Disney films since Lilo and Stitch have been a huge success so that doesn't say much. Even Chicken Little barely made over $300 million worldwide with a $150 million budget and also had decent marketing put into it. I know Chicken Little made more money, but it costed more to make and thus needed to make more money.

In general, it's just another Disney film. Doubling its budget (not counting marketing), it's VERY likely to hit the needed $200 million worldwide as it has yet to open in UK, Japan, among others. It's merch boom likely off sets marketing costs.

Assuming it does in fact hit over $200 million worldwide (Disney will get to keep over 55% of the actual film gross, it varies in overseas numbers), it's going to be a good success in DVD sales compared to the other late Disney films.

BTW, it does not need to out-gross Bolt. Bolt had a $150 budget, this had a $105 million budget. Marketing, however, was higher for this film, but so were merch sales. I also expect DVD sales to do better than Bolt's (I'm using Bolt to compare since it was Disney previous film, which underperformed as well).
 

Computer Magic

Well-Known Member
I wonder if the lack of success is caused by passed failures of Disney movies. This movie picked up steam by word of mouth. Hopefully this is the start of people thinking Disney is a name to go see.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom