EPCOT Explorer
New Member
Why does everything have to be black or white?:shrug: Nothing is absolute.
-
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
Why does everything have to be black or white?:shrug: Nothing is absolute.
SirGoofy
Member
It's not a financial failure. I'll say that. It's made a profit.
But Disney expect this to blow people away and to get people in droves to come out for a 2D movie so they could say this was the rebirth of their defining genre. It didn't do either.
I wanted it to be a huge success if for no other reason than to get more 2D. I really feel like after the next few that are in the pipeline, I wouldn't expect many more.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Wow, you never tire of biting the hand that feeds you do you? I'm not sure you have any idea how that reads to people.
Anyway, it should go well past the 200 M mark in ticket sales. DVD sales/rentals/PPV could equal that. Add merchandise and what is probably a revenue generator well into the future and in the end everyone will consider it a success.
SirGoofy
Member
And I don't think you have any idea about how much longer they may be "feeding" me.
But sure, assume away as you always do!
We'll see.:wave:
jt04
Well-Known Member
Well that is pretty cryptic. Are you saying you are going to be there more, less or not at all?
SirGoofy
Member
CaptainMichael
Well-Known Member
I think I'll continue to reap the benefits until August. I will miss the free admission, but it will keep me from going just to go (like I've been doing.) If I visit my friends, it will be SeaWorld and Universal (unless they have Maingates.)
epcotWSC
Well-Known Member
I personally think they released the movie at a horrible time. Around the holidays is not the best time. People don't have as much money to begin with. That plus Avatar coming out at a similar time didn't help.
2009 didn't have very many big movies. I would say there was probably about 6 big movies all year.
Avatar, Transformers 2, Harry Potter, New Moon, Up, The Hangover.
You can take out the Hangover since that's rated R, that leaves you with 5. If you want you can throw in Star Trek and make it 6.
After Star Trek nothing grossed more than 250M.
Of those 7 movies, 5 were released between May and July. Two were released From the end of November through YE.
Granted, it's sometimes hard to tell what movies will be big. However, every movie that ended up being big in 2009 was expected except the Hangover and maybe Up. Personally, I think Mid-Late August may have been a better time.
2009 didn't have very many big movies. I would say there was probably about 6 big movies all year.
Avatar, Transformers 2, Harry Potter, New Moon, Up, The Hangover.
You can take out the Hangover since that's rated R, that leaves you with 5. If you want you can throw in Star Trek and make it 6.
After Star Trek nothing grossed more than 250M.
Of those 7 movies, 5 were released between May and July. Two were released From the end of November through YE.
Granted, it's sometimes hard to tell what movies will be big. However, every movie that ended up being big in 2009 was expected except the Hangover and maybe Up. Personally, I think Mid-Late August may have been a better time.
matt_taylor1985
Member
Well I saw it and really thought it reminded me of the good ol' classic Disney movies, specifically the Little Mermaid. I never actually thought it would ever be a huge success, because I think everyone has moved on (sadly) where all animation (for general public) has to be in CGI, and 2D is somewhat looked on as nostalgic. I think in a big way it's Disney's fault though. They effectively abandoned 2D when CGI was the big thing, which makes sense business wise.
matt_taylor1985
Member
I have no doubt it's viewed as a disappointment.
I think you're onto something there.
In the meantime, my daughter's Tiana obsession continues... no CGI movie has ever stuck with her this long. It will be interesting to see what happens in March. I still know a lot of people who want to see it but are waiting for the dvd release. After all it's become cheaper for a family to buy a dvd which they can then keep, than to see a movie once in a theater. Keeping my fingers crossed that it does well.
Just a quick aside to the 2D discussion, Mickey Mouse Clubhouse would be so much easier to sit through if it were traditionally animated. I feel like I'm watching a video game. Hot dog!
matt_taylor1985
Member
Yeah I know what you mean. I put it on for our 17 month old as, because it's always on here, it's the most easily accessible content with Mickey in it for her.
I would say, although it's deemed as a disappointment, I still thoroughly enjoyed. It really kind of felt like a combination of other Disney movies. Dr. Facilier reminded me of Jafar. Also I loved Louis and will probably pick up a cuddly toy of him for my daughter when were at WDW next month.
Disneyfanman
Well-Known Member
I must be in the minority because I really thought the movie was entertainingly average. I love animated movies, but the plot never caught me. I believe that this movie under-performed because it wasn't great. It was a nice, well crafted average movie with some terrific moments, but at the end of the day I had no desire to see it again.
I don't fault Disney at all. They tossed talent, money, and attention at this film. It had Randy Newman for the songs. But there wasn't any buzz among people that I know. Nobody that I knew went to see it twice. I wasn't humming the tunes.
It just didn't come together.......as sometimes happens with any movie.
Sometimes poor movies do really well. The chipmunks sequel didn't deserve the Box Office that it received. Sometimes great movies underperform. I thought the Iron Giant was a wonderful animated film. I loved Frost vs. Nixon a couple of years ago. Neither did well at all.
This movie earned exactly what I thought it should after I saw it. The public got it right. Kids like it. Adults with kids like it. I liked it. But nobody that I knew LOVED it. I live in Salt Lake City, which has the biggest families on the planet. And it had zero buzz out here. I saw it on opening weekend at a matinee. The theater was half full.
Entertainingly average. Nothing sticks to you after you saw it. And I still think that from DISNEY's viewpoint that it was a failure at the box office. Not because it won't cover its costs (I think it will). Because they expected and wanted a MONSTER HIT and didn't get it.
Several people mentioned on these boards that Disney had lowered its expectations and wasn't looking for huge Box Office. That's nuts. They probably lowered it because somebody had finally seen the finished film, or they did some surveys. They realized when the saw the finished product that it wasn't what they had hoped for.
Justifying the Box Office won't change anything. I have heard that it was marketing, the princess factor, wrong demographics, blah blah blah.
Average, nice movies do average box office.
I don't fault Disney at all. They tossed talent, money, and attention at this film. It had Randy Newman for the songs. But there wasn't any buzz among people that I know. Nobody that I knew went to see it twice. I wasn't humming the tunes.
It just didn't come together.......as sometimes happens with any movie.
Sometimes poor movies do really well. The chipmunks sequel didn't deserve the Box Office that it received. Sometimes great movies underperform. I thought the Iron Giant was a wonderful animated film. I loved Frost vs. Nixon a couple of years ago. Neither did well at all.
This movie earned exactly what I thought it should after I saw it. The public got it right. Kids like it. Adults with kids like it. I liked it. But nobody that I knew LOVED it. I live in Salt Lake City, which has the biggest families on the planet. And it had zero buzz out here. I saw it on opening weekend at a matinee. The theater was half full.
Entertainingly average. Nothing sticks to you after you saw it. And I still think that from DISNEY's viewpoint that it was a failure at the box office. Not because it won't cover its costs (I think it will). Because they expected and wanted a MONSTER HIT and didn't get it.
Several people mentioned on these boards that Disney had lowered its expectations and wasn't looking for huge Box Office. That's nuts. They probably lowered it because somebody had finally seen the finished film, or they did some surveys. They realized when the saw the finished product that it wasn't what they had hoped for.
Justifying the Box Office won't change anything. I have heard that it was marketing, the princess factor, wrong demographics, blah blah blah.
Average, nice movies do average box office.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
One of the points I was going to question was Blue Skys' blanket statement that Princess movies are "old hack". I don't believe that to be the case, because Enchanted has already sold 6.8 million copies on DVD and re-issues of Cinderella and The Little Mermaid have done well for sure. I really doubt Princess movies are not enjoyed by the public nowadays. Interestingly, despite Enchated's greater sucess with cirtics and the public, the film has become largely ignored by Disney's marketing and parks divisions. A sequel is begin made, but I haven't seen Giselle in awhile.
I was going to point out that maybe this movie wasn't good enough, but lots of bad movies do well. However the lack of excitement surrounding this movie should not be downplayed or ignored.
Will a name change for Rapunzel really do much to change the public's opinion on it in the future?
Studios Fan
Active Member
Great points. I think it is over-generalizing it to say "princess" movies are not popular when Mermaid and BatB are still incredibly popular. Part of the problem may have been that she was a frog for over half of the movie.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
I believe Disney shelved plans to add Giselle to the princess line when they realized they'd have to pay royalties to Amy Adams for using her likeness.
Disneyfanman
Well-Known Member
I think ALL of this is related to the disappointing Box Office of the Princess and the Frog. I am viewing all of this as a "slow down" vs a stop. I personally think that is a really healthy sign. Going "guardrail to guardrail" on 2-D animation is my mind, destined to fail. Do something well, build on it next time, tweak some details, and expect some failures along the way is how to rebuild the medium. As much as I love John Lassetter, he built up the expectations for this film far too high. I was afraid that Disney would simply bail on 2-D again, but a calculated step backward is the best that I could hope for.
No rose colored glasses here. It was a really good attempt that fell short. It wasn't a disaster. It wasn't a miss. It just wasn't the hit that they were hoping for.
It certainly does, however, place more pressure on the next 2-D film that they decide to release, which if I understand correctly will be Pooh. I think that Pooh has a limited appeal, so I worry.
We need another Ashman / Menkin team. Unfortunately that kind of magic is tough to find.
No rose colored glasses here. It was a really good attempt that fell short. It wasn't a disaster. It wasn't a miss. It just wasn't the hit that they were hoping for.
It certainly does, however, place more pressure on the next 2-D film that they decide to release, which if I understand correctly will be Pooh. I think that Pooh has a limited appeal, so I worry.
We need another Ashman / Menkin team. Unfortunately that kind of magic is tough to find.