Princess and the frog a failure?

[wickedsoccer22]

High box-office numbers usually translate into strong DVD sales. So all of these posts saying PATF will have "legs" which will translate into strong DVD sales, is currently unlikely.

I have a feeling PATF will end up with a domestic total of around $80 million. Atlantis back in 2001 made $84 million domestically. Considering ticket inflation, one can argue Atlantis was a more successful film than PATF. Yet, Atlantis does not factor into the Disney legacy much, if at all.

Sure PATF can turn into legacy film a decade from now. Anything is possible. As of right now, PATF is a huge disappointment for the Disney Company. Signaling to Disney execs to stick with CGI.

I agree

We finally got around to seeing this today, and if I were just judging by our theater, I would say that it is far from a failure. This was a 2 pm matinee showing, and there was not a seat to be found, and kids were sitting on the floor up front. Bad from a fire code standpoint, but pretty good for a movie 2+ weeks out. If this continues through the next week or so while kids are out of school, I don't think D & Co have anything to worry about.

That, and the movie budget has likely been made back several times over just on merch sales.

You also have to take in the fact that today is one of the busiest days for movies during a year. ALL movies are busy today.

You can't judge the movie, even the BO, until the run is complete. We don't know how long it could hang around.

P.S. Avatar had some of the worst dialogue of the decade. And the story? I liked it better the first couple times I saw it when it was called Dances With Wolves and Ferngully.

It really bugs me when people criticize a story of a movie because it's similar to another movie. I'm sorry but then you should be criticizing almost every single movie that comes out now-a-days. How many times have we seen a "happily ever after story", how many times have we seen stories about world disasters, alien invasions, war, love, superheroes. So the message they want to portray is similar to other movies messages, okay.. as long as the way its presented is in a refreshing way, then i don't think the story should be attacked.



I saw PATF opening night and a week later I saw Avatar opening night. I've seen Avatar twice since then. I expected to like Avatar and PATF, but I have obviously come to like one of them a lot more than the other. Disney underestimated the reach Avatar would have into their market.

Its too bad, though, seeing how Disney almost made Avatar as well.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

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

It never is. The production budget and advertising budget are two entirely separate forms of cost. Considering the amount of adverting put into this film it really would likely have to make more than 3 times it's production budget before it could turn a profit for Disney.

3 times the production budget would be $315 million. It's domestic total as of yesterday was $73 million. I'm sure Disney is hoping very hard it does well overseas.

 

[Computer Magic]

That actually makes since, I thought the cost shown was truc cost but it sounds like production buget. It kind of hides what a movie actually cost Since a film’s true cost is reflected in what needs to be spent on developing it, producing it, marketing it and distributing it.

Only the cost of production,, factors into everyday analysis of whether a film is doing well or not...interesting

 

[lovegrumpy]

My youngest ds wanted to see this so we went. Both loved it. Loved thr music so much we went and bought the soundtrack. Also because of this movie we both wanna go vist New Orleans. We well be seeing it again when it comes to the post thrater.

 

[CJR]

It never is. The production budget and advertising budget are two entirely separate forms of cost. Considering the amount of adverting put into this film it really would likely have to make more than 3 times it's production budget before it could turn a profit for Disney.

3 times the production budget would be $315 million. It's domestic total as of yesterday was $73 million. I'm sure Disney is hoping very hard it does well overseas.

Wow! If that's true, Disney should quit making animated movies!

Chicken Little cost $150 million to make and made $314.4 million worldwide. So if that's true, Chicken Little lost $135.6 million

Meet the Robinsons was about $85 million to make and it made $169.3 million, so it would have lost $85.7 million

Bolt cost $150 million to make and made $308.3 million, so it lost $141.7 million

I don't think Disney spends double of what their production budget is on advertising or they've lost a huge chunk of money with their CG films. Note, all three CG films barely made back their budgets worldwide after theater cost is taken out.

Comparing PatF to the CG movies, it's not doing bad at all.

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.

I do agree with that, but think you missed what I was meaning. While adjusting older movies for inflation means it had more people see the movie, I don't think Disney really cares about how many people saw the movie. They care about how much money the movie made. While I think some of the older films could have made more that they originally did today, I don't think they would be equal to the adjusted numbers that websites like boxofficemojo have. Theater prices did rise since the movie came out, but it still made only $84 million when it came out. The cost of a dollar has went up some since 1990, but not up to the point it would have made more than double its original gross.

In terms of attendance, more people saw TLM. However, it did not make more money (unless the budget is taken into consideration) at the box office. From a corporate standpoint, Disney, again, probably does not care if 100 billion people see a movie or five people see a movie as long as the movie makes the same amount of money.

However, it is MUCH easier to compare this film to Disney's recent ones as I did above. Bolt for example wasn't all that much of a success for the all glorified CG films that do SO much better than 2D films *sarcasm*. I loved Bolt, actually more than PatF, but I think when production cost is considered, Bolt won't be in any better shape and it was only released a year ago with the nice 3D ticket charge of about $3 for a good percentage of it's final gross.

 

[WDW1974]

Three times production cost is a bit much.

But this film needs to make at least $150 million in the USA to break even, and I don't think that's gonna happen.

The only saving grace is the fact it is selling merchandise. But PaTF isn't a success by any stretch. And even if/when it becomes profittable, it won't be what was expected. So, all this talking about what other films made in current dollars etc really has no point with the fact this film is failing in TODAY's marketplace based on what it cost (both production and marketing) and what it is making.

Sure, in the long run, it'll make it back and then some ... Fantasia did too ... over decades.

That's not what Iger, Lasseter and Co. were hoping for here.

 

[CJR]

It's still not doing bad against the recent films which were released in basically the exact same market. Chicken Little and Bolt failed to meet the budgets back domestically.

I know how people keep saying that Disney is or will be disappointed, but why wasn't Disney disappointed with the other films. Ticket prices aren't very different from the time Chicken Little (Meet the Robinsons and Bolt) came out and all three of them had the advantage of Digital 3D screens.

While The Princess and the Frog will not be a blockbuster success, I don't see how it can possibly be worse off than the CG films especially given the great merchandise sales (unlike the CG films).

What was Disney really hoping for? Did they really expect this to out perform the CG films? I mean, it would be nice if it did, but should it really be expected to? Also, if they really expected it to, then why did they make it on such a smaller budget?

I'm thinking this film is doing about what Disney's ok with. It's not really failing or else the animated slate since Lilo and Stitch has all failed.

 

[jt04]

It's still not doing bad against the recent films which were released in basically the exact same market. Chicken Little and Bolt failed to meet the budgets back domestically.

I know how people keep saying that Disney is or will be disappointed, but why wasn't Disney disappointed with the other films. Ticket prices aren't very different from the time Chicken Little (Meet the Robinsons and Bolt) came out and all three of them had the advantage of Digital 3D screens.

While The Princess and the Frog will not be a blockbuster success, I don't see how it can possibly be worse off than the CG films especially given the great merchandise sales (unlike the CG films).

What was Disney really hoping for? Did they really expect this to out perform the CG films? I mean, it would be nice if it did, but should it really be expected to? Also, if they really expected it to, then why did they make it on such a smaller budget?

I'm thinking this film is doing about what Disney's ok with. It's not really failing or else the animated slate since Lilo and Stitch has all failed.

I like the way you think. Very well said.

 

[dizpins14]

Disney did not have high expectations for Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons and Bolt. That's the difference between those features and Princess and the Frog. Meet the Robinsons had a poor release date and very limited marketing push. Bolt switched directors during productions. Lasseter also went in at the last minute and demanded changes to Bolt.

The fact remains PATF was supposed to be a tentpole film for Disney. It has not lived up to these expectations. Has the film been a bomb? No. But I would be willing to bet if ________ Cook had not been shown the door before Old Dogs, A Christmas Carol, and Princess and the Frog, he certainly would have been after those films.

 

[CJR]

I have to disagree with that. Disney made a huge investment transitioning to CG animation with Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, and Bolt. After Home on the Range, Disney took over a year off (without a release) to launch the CG division
<o></o>
Given the investment they had to make by moving from traditional animation to computer graphic animation, I'm sure they had their expectations. Chicken Little was absolutely a tent pole film. The studio reinvented itself to make it.<o></o>

I'm not saying PatF is a blockbuster success. It's just not a failure as people try to say it is. Also, Bolt had a lot of marketing going on for it. The names of John Travolta and Miley Cyrus were everywhere. It also had a budget of $150 million compared to PatF's $105 million.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Wow! If that's true, Disney should quit making animated movies!

Chicken Little cost $150 million to make and made $314.4 million worldwide. So if that's true, Chicken Little lost $135.6 million

Meet the Robinsons was about $85 million to make and it made $169.3 million, so it would have lost $85.7 million

Bolt cost $150 million to make and made $308.3 million, so it lost $141.7 million

I don't think Disney spends double of what their production budget is on advertising or they've lost a huge chunk of money with their CG films. Note, all three CG films barely made back their budgets worldwide after theater cost is taken out.

Comparing PatF to the CG movies, it's not doing bad at all.

Who says Disney is doing that? There is NO way Disney is comparing PatF to Meet and Robinson for example. None of those film had the marketing push or importance of this release or the amount of media hype involving PC changes to please minorities, the new princess (publicity photos of her theme park likeness 4 months out!), a TV special comparing them to previous Disney classics, putting clips from Lion King in their trailers, having theme park shows, a custom teaser trailer, the list goes on.

Movie companies only get a certain percentage of what is actually made at the box office since movie theatre chains have to make money to. And with each successive week the percentage of what Disney would get diminishes which is why it is so critical films have large opening weekends and do not have 50%+ drops between the first and second weekends.

3 times is a safe way of estimating that all costs associated with putting out a movie will be recovered and is the industry/textbook standard. Most movies have to sell in the home video market to make up that costs, however major blockbusters like a Disney animated release (especially a princess movie with over a year of advertising) should be able to do just that. $315 should in theory be easy for PatF, but it's domestic total so far is proving that maybe it won't be so easy after all.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Can we just agree on "not great, not terrible" for this one?

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Can we just agree on "not great, not terrible" for this one?

But isn't it terrible if it's not great?

 

[CJR]

I'm more so comparing it to Chicken Little than Meet the Robinsons. Chicken Little WAS a major film for Disney as it launched the CG division for the company.

Disney had a huge marketing campaign for it. They also did for Bolt. While the marketing campaign for Princess and the Frog might be a little higher, I don't see it being that much higher. Also given the fact that it was made at a smaller cost $105 million as to $150 million, I think that in and of itself makes up for the difference in the marketing cost.

Chicken Little barely made over $300 million worldwide on a $150 million budget and WAS a launch of a whole new kind of animation for the company. Disney started promoting Chicken Little well before it came out, like PatF. Both were ground breaking films for Disney.

This film should absolutely be compared to the CG films. If Disney expected PatF to do so much better than the CG films they're stupid. Plain and simple. This film was not supposed to show that 2D movies are more popular than CG, it was to prove that there was a strong market out there that would watch a 2D movie and that it's the story that matters most. This film has done that. Its domestic gross is not bad (nor is it great) and people are showing up to see it. That is what Disney wanted. Not for it outperform Bolt or Chicken Little (neither of which made their $150 million plus marketing budgets back domestically).

That's just my opinion, of course. I just don't see how Disney could have possibly expected it to make well over $300 million world wide when their top selling CG films barely made $300 million themselves.

But isn't it terrible if it's not great?

Ha,ha. Personally, I agree with that. However, if I was Iger standing in front of the shareholders, no. "It's doing "average" for a film of this type and that was what we were wanting to happen. This film is a long-term success and will turn a profit through merchandise sales, DVD sales, through the princess brand, among other forms of revenue. It will be making money for decades to come." That's how Disney will look at it as a company.

Not to mention, it's been a while since I have seen a great Disney (non-Pixar) animated film. Honestly, I think Emperor's New Groove was the last one I thought was great. I personally, didn't think Lilo and Stitch was that great. I mean, it was like this film, not bad, but not great. haha, my opinion again.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I'm more so comparing it to Chicken Little than Meet the Robinsons. Chicken Little WAS a major film for Disney as it launched the CG division for the company.

Disney had a huge marketing campaign for it. They also did for Bolt. While the marketing campaign for Princess and the Frog might be a little higher, I don't see it being that much higher. Also given the fact that it was made at a smaller cost $105 million as to $150 million, I think that in and of itself makes up for the difference in the marketing cost.

"Might be a little higher"? That's just outright denial. Unless you can come up with comparable marketing tactics and the success of them, there's zero evidence to support your view. Was Vanessa Williams hosting a special on Bolt, or was there a Theme Park show? As someone who worked at the Disney Store when the film was released I can tell you for a fact that the film did not have the same amount of merchandise sold or for the same amount of time that PatF did. We also didn't give out cards to people to educate them on the characters in Bolt either.

I also fail to see your point in your comparisons of the films budgets. You have no idea what the marketing cost of this film was.

Chicken Little barely made over $300 million worldwide on a $150 million budget and WAS a launch of a whole new kind of animation for the company. Disney started promoting Chicken Little well before it came out, like PatF. Both were ground breaking films for Disney.

This film is going against a tend of CGI/non musical animated movies, Chicken little was jumping on a band wagon.

This film should absolutely be compared to the CG films. If Disney expected PatF to do so much better than the CG films they're stupid. Plain and simple. This film was not supposed to show that 2D movies are more popular than CG, it was to prove that there was a strong market out there that would watch a 2D movie and that it's the story that matters most. This film has done that. Its domestic gross is not bad (nor is it great) and people are showing up to see it. That is what Disney wanted. Not for it outperform Bolt or Chicken Little (neither of which made their $150 million plus marketing budgets back domestically).

People are showing up but in more numbers for Alvin 2 (not to mention Up and Monsters Vs. Aliens earlier this year). What does that tell Disney? And I guess they are stupid for assuming a movie who's merchandise sells out months before it's release is going to make more than $114 million domestically. I'm guessing what the film has made so far is not "strong numbers" to the company.

That's just my opinion, of course. I just don't see how Disney could have possibly expected it to make well over $300 million world wide when their top selling CG films barely made $300 million themselves.

Their top selling CGI films did not have a billion dollar franchise to support them or the successful concept of the Disney animated fairy tale musical. Enchanted, a Disney fairy tale with hand drawn animated and musical sequences made $340 million worldwide 2 years ago.

 

[wickedsoccer22]

Their top selling CGI films did not have a billion dollar franchise to support them or the successful concept of the Disney animated fairy tale musical. Enchanted, a Disney fairy tale with hand drawn animated and musical sequences made $340 million worldwide 2 years ago.

You cant really count Enchanted as an animated movie hit when it only had 11 minutes or so of animation.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

You cant really count Enchanted as an animated movie hit when it only had 11 minutes or so of animation.

I said it had "animated and musical sequences". I never called it an animated feature.

 

[CJR]

People are showing up but in more numbers for Alvin 2 (not to mention Up and Monsters Vs. Aliens earlier this year). What does that tell Disney? And I guess they are stupid for assuming a movie who's merchandise sells out months before it's release is going to make more than $114 million domestically. I'm guessing what the film has made so far is not "strong numbers" to the company.

Two things. 1. You're comparing PatF to CG films, but I can't compare Disney's CG films to the other CG films? Disney as a whole should be disappointed with the whole animation studio, not just the team that did PatF. Comparing non-Disney CG movies to Disney's CG movies, Disney loses to Pixar and most Dreamworks films. Disney falls short either way: 2D or CG.

2. You want me to prove that PatF only costed a "little more" and not "a lot more". That works both ways. There's really no proof that PatF costed more than Chicken Little or Bolt at all. I saw huge marketing campaigns for all Disney movies so it's hard to just say PatF costed more in marketing. You mentioned it had more merchandise sold... umm... it had to be sold didn't it? That alone made money for the franchise. Chicken Little, Bolt, and Meet the Robinsons did not sell merch like this film has. Merch is a huge strong point for PatF at the moment. My point here though is that there is no "proof" either way regarding the marketing budget and Disney, the only people who really know how much was spent on marketing, probably won't give us any. To see say that marketing costs were three times the budget is pure opinion/speculation as is my belief that the cost was much lower.

I think that in the end, this will be FAR more profitable for Disney compared to the previous three CG films.

Enchanted wasn't really an animated movie though. Also, I think it's really the story that puts butts in the seats and not the type of animation. Enchanted had a more broad tarket market than PatF has. It's really difficult to compare PatF to Enchanted for that reason (not to mention it was more live action). For just having musical elements, it would be like comparing PatF to High School Musical.

Now, I have repeatedly said that this film is not doing great: it isn't. Is it doing below expectations? I do believe so. However, I can't and won't call it a failure.

It's likely to make more the $90 million and could make over $100 million if it gets lucky an crawls over the mark. That's not bad. So while it might end up making less than the expectations, the expectations were no doubt sat rather high for this movie. I think most of the people will eventually find that this movie, while not a blockbuster success like Aladdin or The Lion King will not end up a huge failure on the level of Treasure Planet and Home on the Range.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Two things. 1. You're comparing PatF to CG films, but I can't compare Disney's CG films to the other CG films? Disney as a whole should be disappointed with the whole animation studio, not just the team that did PatF. Comparing non-Disney CG movies to Disney's CG movies, Disney loses to Pixar and most Dreamworks films. Disney falls short either way: 2D or CG.

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.

to see say that marketing costs were three times the budget is pure opinion/speculation as is my belief that the cost was much lower.

I never said the marketing was 3 times the budget. I said it has to make 3 times the budget to recover all costs associated with putting out a movie because Disney (or any movie company) never gets 100% of what the film makes at the box office. "Putting out" includes production, marketing and distribution costs. It is speculation on my part, but it is the industry standard and so far based on your posts you haven't fully understood what I've been saying.

I think that in the end, this will be FAR more profitable for Disney compared to the previous three CG films.

When is the end? Disney, like any other film company, wants movies to make money as soon as they are released. Especially since home video sales are usually proportionate to box office preformace. The only thing at this point that indicates substantial long run revevue is merch sales. Last time I checked Disney likes to make more than just money off dolls.

Enchanted wasn't really an animated movie though. Also, I think it's really the story that puts butts in the seats and not the type of animation. Enchanted had a more broad tarket market than PatF has. It's really difficult to compare PatF to Enchanted for that reason (not to mention it was more live action). For just having musical elements, it would be like comparing PatF to High School Musical.

Again, I never said it was an animated movie, but it was a musical fairy tale with a (short lived) Disney Princess tie in that had animated sequences to add to it's appeal.

 

[Studios Fan]

I'm glad that its box office seems to be holding steady. It hasn't done what I hoped but it certainly is not a failure.